0

Suit for permanent injunction based on claim under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property is Maintainable- High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Suit for permanent injunction based on claim under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property is Maintainable- High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Section 53 (A) states that where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty and the transferee has. The landmark judgement passed by the single bench of HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT in RAJENDER SINGH V NANAK SINGH (RSA No. 988 of 2011 (O&M)) dealt with the issue mentioned above.

In this case the respondent had filed a suit for declaration of his title and for injunction, claiming that the defendant be restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff .Who had become owner of the property; by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but due to some wrong records of revenue, the person from whom the land was brought he sold it to the present petitioner Rajender Singh. Both the parties filed suit in lower court, the judgement was given in the favor of the present petitioner aggrieved by this the respondent filed another suit in lower appellate court, the judgement was on his favor as he had purchased the land rightfully, aggrieved by this order the petitioner moved to the High court by the way of this petition.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the lower Appellate Court has not recorded a finding that the plaintiff Nanak Singh had fulfilled the ingredients of Section 53-A of the Act. Therefore, it is his submission that the benefit of Section 53-A of the Act, cannot be extended to plaintiff Nanak Singh, even if the defendant is held to be not bona fide purchaser, although, the defendant has proved on record that he was a bona fide purchaser. He has proved revenue record, which show no entry regarding the agreement in question by referring the supreme court judgement in Suraj Lamp Vs. State of Haryana (2011(4) RCR (Civil) 669).

The learned counsel for the state contended The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further submits that Section 53-A of the Act can very well be invoked by a person for protecting his possession, merely because the agreement in his favor is not reflected in the revenue record and the defendant claims to have verified from the revenue record; that does not exclude the notice to the defendant/purchaser.

The Hon’ble court analyzed the facts of the present case and the arguments of both the parties and opined that “the Section of 53-A provides two eventualities, i.e. the vendee should either have performed his part of agreement, or in alternative, he should be willing to perform his part of agreement claim the benefit of Proviso to Section 53-A of the Act, the defendant was required to prove that he had no notice of the transaction in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant-Rajender Singh cannot be held to be a bona fide purchaser. Hence finding no perversity, the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court are upheld. In view of the above, finding no merits, both the appeals are dismissed.”

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat