Beneficial purchase arrangement recognised despite unregistered agreement; Section 66 CPC held inapplicable to Receiver's sale.

Evidence showed that plaintiffs 2 and 3 advanced funds for the purchase as part of a beneficial arrangement, not as a mere loan, so they acquired equitable interests despite the conveyance standing in the defendant's name. The first plaintiff failed to prove any contribution and obtained no relief. The absence of registration did not defeat the claim because the suit rested on the real nature of the transaction, not on the unregistered instrument as a conveyance of title. Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to a Receiver's sale made under court directions, as it is confined to certified court purchases under the prescribed execution procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs, particularly plaintiffs 2 and 3, established that the property was acquired in co-ownership and that they were entitled to shares in the property despite the conveyance standing in the defendant's name; (ii) Whether the unregistered agreement of 2 April 1960 barred the plaintiffs from obtaining relief; (iii) Whether Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to a sale conducted by a Receiver under the directions of the Court.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs, particularly plaintiffs 2 and 3, established that the property was acquired in co-ownership and that they were entitled to shares in the property despite the conveyance standing in the defendant's name.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances and conduct showed that the defendant had initially negotiated for the purchase on his own, but later, when he required funds to complete the purchase, plaintiffs 2 and 3 advanced money without interest. The evidence did not support the plaintiffs' full version that all three plaintiffs had contributed equally before the bids were made, and the first plaintiff failed to prove any payment by him. At the same time, the defendant's own conduct in signing the agreement and seeking confirmation in the joint names was inconsistent with his plea of a mere loan. On the balance of probabilities, the transaction with plaintiffs 2 and 3 was not a loan simpliciter but an arrangement giving them beneficial interests in the property.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs 2 and 3 established entitlement to 1/4th share each in the property on payment of their proportionate expenses, while the first plaintiff was not entitled to relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the unregistered agreement of 2 April 1960 barred the plaintiffs from obtaining relief.

Analysis: An unregistered instrument could not by itself displace the legal title created by confirmation of sale and conveyance. However, the suit was not founded solely on the document as a conveyance of title. The claim was that the property was really acquired in co-ownership and that the defendant held it for the benefit of the parties concerned. In that setting, the absence of registration did not defeat the plaintiffs' substantive claim based on the real nature of the transaction as found on evidence.

Conclusion: The unregistered agreement did not bar the relief ultimately granted to plaintiffs 2 and 3.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to a sale conducted by a Receiver under the directions of the Court.

Analysis: Section 66 applies only where title is claimed under a purchase certified by the Court in the manner prescribed under Order 21, Rule 94. A Receiver's sale under the Court's directions is not the kind of sale contemplated by that provision, and the statutory bar was therefore inapplicable. The objection based on Section 66 could not defeat the suit.

Conclusion: Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not apply to the Receiver's sale.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, resulting in a decree for partition and separate possession in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3, while the first plaintiff obtained no relief. The statutory objections raised by the defendant failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where evidence shows that money was advanced not as a loan but as part of a beneficial purchase arrangement, relief may be granted on the true nature of the transaction notwithstanding absence of registration, and Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to certified court purchases under the prescribed execution procedure.

---