CASE TITLE:
Gangappa Vs. Lingareddy
ḌATE OF ORDER:
10 October 2022
JUDGES:
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
PARTIES:
Appellant: Gangappa
Respondent: Lingareddy
SUBJECT
According to the Karnataka High Court, a transfer under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act occurs if immovable property with a value of less than Rs.100 is alienated and possession is granted. The same was maintained when a single judge panel of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed an appeal brought by one Gangappa, challenging the concurrent judgments of the courts below, wherein the petition he filed seeking a declaration and permanent injunction was denied.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Transfer of Property Act
- Section 54 - Sale how made. - Transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable 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. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale. - A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
BRIEF FACTS
- The plaintiff’s mother, the appellant's maternal grandfather, was said to be the owner of the property included in the lawsuit schedule, according to the appellant. It was claimed that the defendant had created a bogus document and was attempting to meddle with the assets listed in the lawsuit schedule.
- In opposition to the plea, the defendant claimed that his father had obtained absolute right and title to the property by purchasing it from the plaintiff's maternal grandfather through a sale deed dated 14.11.1963 and leaving it to him through a will dated 11.06.1973 as a result.
- His father bought the suit's schedule property under an unregistered sale deed because the market value of the property was less than Rs.100, which meant that the sale deed did not require any registration. As a result, his father requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether unregistered sale deed can defy title by delivery of possession of immovable property valued below Rs.100?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The plaintiff’s knowledgeable attorney has adamantly claimed and argued before this Court that there are no recitals in the sale document that show his maternal grandpa gave up possession. He has therefore argued that the paper used as evidence by the defendant is false. According to the suit, he has sole possession. The plaintiff’s paternal grandfather consented to sell the property listed on the lawsuit schedule. The sale price is displayed as Rs.95. Therefore, no registration is necessary for transfers of tangible immovable property valued at less than Rs.100.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The defendant has provided copies of the patta book and receipts for land income payments as rebuttal proof. In addition to these records, the defendant was successful in getting P.W.2 to concede under cross-examination that the defendant’s father did in fact cultivate the disputed area.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The evidence in the case shows that the defendant's father was discovered to have physical possession of the land under suit. During P.W. 2's cross-examination, this fact comes out. It is common knowledge that a sale of an immovable property worth less than Rs. 100 can be completed through a registered document or through the transfer of possession. In many situations, only giving the vendee possession of the property transfers the entire title to them. The fact that there is also an unregistered sale deed cannot change the solid title he has acquired. Because of this, the existence of an unregistered sale deed does not render an unregistered deed null and void if there is a physical conveyance of possession.
- Furthermore, it is common law that the conveyance need not take place at the same time as the unregistered deed. Even though an unregistered sale deed by itself does not transmit title, if possession has been delivered in accordance with one, the buyer may rely on the title through delivery of possession. In the matter at hand, Ganganna, the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather, never questioned the transaction while he was alive.
- As a result, it is clear from the evidence on file that the vendor, or grandfather of the plaintiff in this case, changed the vendee's possession into that of an owner by taking the necessary actions. Therefore, an unregistered instrument of sale would not be relevant in cases where conveyance of possession has been shown.
- The grandchild of the vendor now wants to contest a 1963 transaction. Therefore, it is evident from a simple reading of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act that there are only two ways to transfer property by sale: (i) by registered instrument; and (ii) by surrender of possession. The first and second overlap since a transfer can always be done using a registered instrument.
- Only when the tangible immovable property is less than Rs. 100/- does Section 54 of the T.P. Act permit the more straightforward option of handover of possession. Accordingly, the court believes that since there has been a transfer of property in the current case and that property’s value was determined to be less than Rs.100, the transfer was made possible by the delivery of possession along with an unregistered document. Ex.D.18, an unregistered sale deed, has evidentiary significance and can be used as evidence to demonstrate the nature of the possession provided by the seller of the land to the buyer. The deal occurred in 1963. As a result, it must be assumed that the vendor has transferred title, and receipt of possession serves as proof of this.
- Outside of the unregistered sale deed, there is evidence that, is ample enough to support the finding. Therefore, the bench believes that a transfer occurs in accordance with Section 54 of the T.P. Act whenever immovable property with a value of less than Rs. 100/- is alienated and possession is granted.
CONCLUSION
According to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is not permitted to reevaluate the oral and documentary evidence. In light of the fact that both courts below have determined there was a sale that was followed by the conveyance of possession, which is a finding of fact that cannot be contested, the appeal is likely to be dismissed. Therefore, there is no important legal issue that requires attention. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
