TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the unregistered conveyance deed was exempt from compulsory registration and could convey title to the plaintiffs; (ii) Whether the Government had released the property so as to make the conveyance deed redundant; (iii) Whether the plaintiffs could invoke the doctrine of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in support of their claim for injunction; (iv) Whether mere possession entitled the plaintiffs to an injunction against a party with better title.
Issue (i): Whether the unregistered conveyance deed was exempt from compulsory registration and could convey title to the plaintiffs.
Analysis: The deed related to two temples and not to land or any interest in land, so the exemption for grants or assignments of land under section 90(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 did not apply. Since the deed transferred rights in immovable property, it was compulsorily registrable under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. An unregistered instrument of that kind could not be received as evidence of the transaction for transferring title.
Conclusion: The deed did not convey title to the plaintiffs and the contention based on exemption from registration failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Government had released the property so as to make the conveyance deed redundant.
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between requisition and acquisition. Section 3(1) dealt with requisition, section 7 with acquisition, and section 6(2) concerned release from requisition only. Once the property had been acquired, section 6(2) had no application. The property therefore remained vested in the Government until transferred by a valid conveyance.
Conclusion: The plea of release under section 6(2) was rejected and the deed was not redundant.
Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs could invoke the doctrine of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in support of their claim for injunction.
Analysis: Section 53A operates as a shield and not as a sword. It protects a transferee in possession against enforcement by the transferor or persons claiming under him, but does not confer an independent title or preferential ownership in a suit by the transferee as plaintiff against a rival transferee with a better claim. In the present dispute, the defendant had been allotted the property by the competent authority, while the plaintiffs had acquired no title under the unregistered deed.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs could not rely on section 53A as the basis of affirmative relief in their suit.
Issue (iv): Whether mere possession entitled the plaintiffs to an injunction against a party with better title.
Analysis: Possession can justify an injunction only against persons who have no better title. Where the defendant establishes a superior title, possession alone is insufficient to restrain interference. The plaintiffs' possession could not override the defendant's allotment and superior title derived from the competent authority.
Conclusion: Mere possession did not entitle the plaintiffs to an injunction.
Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to establish title or a superior possessory right capable of defeating the defendant's allotment, and the decree of dismissal was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered conveyance of immovable property does not confer title, section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is available only as a defensive shield and not as a foundation for affirmative relief by a plaintiff, and possession alone cannot justify an injunction against a party with better title.
TaxTMI 
