Dismissed

Azmat Ali v. Puttan and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024SAPL/290/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, who purchased land via an unregistered sale deed in 1986, sought a permanent injunction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that transfer of immovable property requires registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the appellant failed to prove possession.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no relief was granted to the appellant.

Azmat Ali Vs Puttan and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31043

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 290 of 2015

¶4

Appellant :- Azmat Ali Respondent :- Puttan And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldeep Singh,Harish Chandra Yadav,Jai Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Gupta,Prashant Shukla,Sanjay Kumar Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Durgesh Kumar Pathak,Advocate holding brief of Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had purchased khandahar alongwith the land in dispute from one Sri Shiv Prashad for a consideration of Rs.600/-, in regard to which the sale deed was executed by him on 28.09.1986. The possession was also handed over to the appellant. Thereafter he had constructed the house thereon and residing in the same, but the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant has been dismissed only on the ground that the same is not registered, whereas the appellant was in possession of the property in dispute.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no transfer of immovable property of a value of 100 rupees upwards can be made without registered instrument in accordance with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and since the sale deed was not registered, therefore, no rights could have been accrued on the basis of same. He further submits that the land in dispute is ancestral property of the respondents and they are in possession and the appellant has also failed to prove his possession. Thus, the suit and the appeal of the appellant has rightly been dismissed in accordance with law and no substantial question of law arises in this case.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶11

The Khandahar alongwith the land in dispute was purchased by the appellant through alleged sale deed dated 28.09.1986 for a consideration of Rs.600/-. The said document has not been

¶12

registered, whereas the transfer of immovable property of a value of 100 rupees upwards can be made only by registered document. Even otherwise, the appellant has failed to prove his possession on the property in dispute.

¶13

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court and no substantial question of law arises in this case.

¶14

The appeal is misconceived and lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Akanksha

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Azmat Ali v. Puttan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azmat Ali v. Puttan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Kumar Pandey S/O Late Ram Bihari Pandey and Anr. Vs Mustak Ali S/O Nawashad Ali and Anr.

Avtar and Others Vs Hanuman Prasad and Others

National Insurance Company Limited Thru Asst. Manager Vs Smt. Saroj Singh W/O Late Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors.

Smt. Dhanpati Vs Bhagwan Din and Another

Chandrakanti and Others vs Shyam Kumar Verma

Smt. Raj Rani and Another Vs Indra Pal and Ors.