An Unregistered Agreement to share compensation by acknowledging half right and title in the acquired property does not confer any title or right to claim a share in compensation = Sec.30 Reference under L.A. Act - Brothers - Reg.Sale Deed stands in the name of Appellant - settlement agreement to share the compensation equally between two brothers stands in the name of Respondent but genuineness is disputed - Appellant admitted that in earlier occasion , both shared equally the compensation amount - Trail court held that both are entitled for equal share as per the agreement of settlement for sharing compensation and as per the admission of sharing of compensation in earlier occasion - Appeal - Their Lordships held that since the settlement agreement is un registered one and since it is disputed - it can not be considered and further held that by mere admission of sharing compensation earlier equally does not confer title over the property and further held that alternative plea of the property purchased in Benami infavour of Appellant and as such both are equally entitled not applies as the land acquisition in the present case is subsequent to19.05.1988 the defence of benami which was otherwise available in a suit or a claim is not available from 19.05.1988 i.e., from the date of coming into force of Section 4 of the Act. - allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court decree -2015 Telangana & A.P, Msklawreprots



Since the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein had made claims for
receiving the said amount, a reference was made under Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the civil Court and on such a reference the
present OP.No.62 of 1996 was taken on file by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Karimnagar. 
 Before the reference Court, the 2nd respondent
herein and his supporting witness were examined as PWs1 and 2 and the  
appellant herein was examined as RW1.  Exhibits A1 to A9 and B1 to B3  
were marked.  
On merits, the Court below had held that both the
appellant and the 2nd respondent herein are entitled for equal shares in
the compensation amount that was awarded for the acquired land. 
The
aggrieved 1st respondent in the OP i.e., the appellant herein had
therefore, filed this appeal before the Court.

Viewed thus, we find that there is merit in the appeal and
that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.  
Therefore, we hold
that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to receive compensation for the
acquired land along with the appellant and that the appellant alone is
entitled to receive the entire compensation for the acquired land, having
acquired the absolute right, title and interest to the said land by virtue
of exhibit B1-registered sale deed.  

The point is accordingly answered in
favour of the appellant.

       Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is
set aside holding that the appellant is exclusively entitled to the
compensation amount and that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to any
share in the compensation amount.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 Whether the 2nd respondent is not entitled to receive
compensation for the acquired land along with the appellant?
In other
words, the question is
Whether the appellant is the exclusive absolute
owner having right, title and interest in the acquired land and is
therefore, alone entitled to receive the entire compensation for the
acquired land, having purchased the acquired land by virtue of exhibit
B1-registered sale deed?
  (a)     The facts are not in dispute.
  The appellant and the 2nd respondent
are brothers.
They are also having other brothers who are not parties to
this lis.
The appellant claims that he is the exclusive owner of the
acquired land having purchased the same along with some other land
under exhibit B1-registered sale deed dated 18.09.1984 and that
therefore, he is alone having right, title and interest in the acquired land
and that the 2nd respondent has no manner of right in the acquired land
and that therefore, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to any share in the
compensation awarded by the LAO in respect of the present acquired
land.
The 2nd respondent is not disputing the truth and validity of the
said exhibit B1-sale deed and also the fact that the appellant had
purchased the acquired land also along with other land under exhibit B1-
registered sale deed from the vendors therein.
 However, his only
contention is that a portion of the land of the appellant in an extent of
0.08 guntas was earlier acquired and that at that time the compensation
that was awarded in respect of that portion of the acquired land was
shared equally between the appellant and the 2nd respondent and that
the appellant had also admitted in his evidence before the Court below
that the said compensation earlier awarded for the said earlier acquired
land was received by both the appellant and the 2nd respondent.
 The 2nd
respondent places reliance upon exhibit A1-unregistered agreement and
contends that under the said agreement, his(2nd respondents)  right to a
share in the present acquired land is admitted by the appellant and that
there was an understanding to pay a share in the compensation also to
the 2nd respondent.
Thus, the claim of the 2nd respondent is not based on
his right, title and interest in respect of a half share of the acquired land
by virtue of legal and valid title to the acquired land.
A perusal of
exhibit B1-registered sale deed would show that the appellant had
purchased the acquired land in an extent of Ac.1.38 guntas in survey
no.591 with other lands under the said sale deed.
Therefore, from the
recitals in the said document, it is sufficiently established that the
appellant is the exclusive and absolute owner having right, title and
interest in the acquired land.
 Thus, the acquired land was purchased by
the appellant under exhibit B1 even by the year 1984.
 It is appropriate
to note that the land was acquired in the year 1992.
 Now coming to the
contentions of the 2nd respondent based on exhibit A1, which is an
unregistered agreement, it is to be first noted that under the said
agreement, the appellant had agreed to the effect that the appellant-
Bhoom Reddy is the pattedar of the land but half share therein belongs
to the 2nd respondent and that therefore, in future they both shall divide
the loss or profit from the said land equally and that a half share shall be
given to the 2nd respondent and that in the remaining land submerged,
the appellant shall give half of the compensation to the 2nd respondent.
In view of the said recitals in the said agreement, the 2nd respondent
claims that the appellant had recognized the 2nd respondents right, title
and interest in the acquired land and had also conferred title on the 2nd
respondent in respect of half of the acquired land under exhibit A1-
agreement and that the appellant had further agreed to pay half of the
compensation in the submerged land and that therefore, the 2nd
respondent is entitled to a half share in the compensation in respect of
the acquired land.  
The sum and substance of the contention of the 2nd
respondent is that though the appellant is the absolute owner of the
acquired land by virtue of exhibit B1-registered sale deed, the 2nd
respondent is entitled to a half share in the compensation awarded for
the acquired land in view of the admission under exhibit A1-agreement
that the 2nd respondent is entitled to a half share in the land as well as
the compensation. 
Admittedly, exhibit A1 is an unregistered agreement,
the genuineness of which is disputed by the appellant.  Exhibit A1-
agreement was executed in the year 1991 itself i.e., even before the
notification was issued for the acquisition of the land by foreseeing that
the land would be acquired in the year 1992 is a circumstance to doubt
the genuineness of the said agreement under exhibit A1.  Be that as it
may. 

(b)     Under Section 17(1)(a) & (b) of the Indian Registration
Act, instruments of gift of immovable property and other
non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create,
declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any
right, title or interest vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred
rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property are all documents of
which registration is compulsory.
Under Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, a transfer of immovable property can only be made by
means of a registered document.
 Therefore, exhibit A1-agreement which
is compulsorily registerable is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be
looked into since it is not registered; therefore, the contention of the 2nd
respondent based on such a document that he is the owner of half of the
acquired land and is, therefore, entitled to a half share in the
compensation in respect of the acquired land cannot be countenanced as
only a lawful and rightful owner of the property is entitled to receive the
compensation.
Therefore, we hold that the claim of the 2nd respondent
to a half share in the compensation based on exhibit A1-the unregistered
agreement is untenable.

(c)     Coming now to the further contentions of the 2nd
respondent that he and the appellant had shared compensation awarded
in respect of the land acquired earlier and that the appellant had made
admissions in regard to the 2nd respondents right and ownership to the
property and right to receive the compensation in respect of the present
acquired land, it is to be noted that transfer of immovable property
cannot be affected by oral admissions and any transfer of immovable
property can only be by means of an instrument which is registered.

Admittedly, no transfer inter vivos has been affected under a valid
instrument in favour of the 2nd respondent so as to confer legal title upon
him in respect of a half share of the acquired land.
 Any document
specifying relinquishment of a right in immovable property and creating a
corresponding right in another under it requires registration and a person
claiming title to the property and a consequential right to claim
compensation by virtue of such document can rely upon such document if
only it is registered.
Title to immovable property of the value of more
than one hundred rupees passes only through a valid registered
conveyance and title to such property does not pass by admission when
the statute requires a registered deed of transfer.
Therefore, any
admissions that compensation was shared in respect of earlier acquired
land or any further admissions in that regard during the course of trial
before the reference Court in this case, do not take away the right of the
appellant over his landed property and such admissions do not also
confer any right on the 2nd respondent.
In the decision in
Ch.S.Hanumantha Rao and others   this Court
held that the transfer of immovable property cannot be affected by oral
admissions and it can only be by means of an instrument which requires
to be registered and that unless a transfer inter vivos has been affected
under a valid instrument no legal title will be conferred upon the
transferee.

  (d)     Coming lastly to the alternate contention of the 2nd
respondent that the acquired land is the property of both the appellant
and the 2nd respondent and that the appellant is holding the property
benami under exhibit B1 for the benefit of both the parties also cannot
be countenanced in view of Section 4(2) of Act which clearly lays down
that no defence based on any right in respect of any property held
benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held
or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action
by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such
property.

 In the decision in Akinipalli Shankaraiah
this Court having followed the authoritative pronouncement of
the Supreme Court in Rajagopal Reddy
 held as follows in paragraph 13 of the judgment: -
It can be seen clearly from the judgment of the Supreme Court
that it is not sufficient that the transaction must have been
anterior to the date of the commencement of Section 4(2) of the
Act, but the defence of benami must also have been taken prior
to 19.05.1988.
The Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment held as follows:
Section 4(1) of the Act has no application to the suit which was
filed prior to coming into force of Section 4 of the Act ie.,
19.05.1988.
Insofar as Section 4(2) of the Act is concerned, a
defence of benami, which was otherwise available to a
defendant in a suit, till coming into the force of Section 4 of the
Act, is no more available to the defendant, if such a defence is
taken by the above mentioned cut-off date i.e., 19.5.1988, in
other words, the written statement is not filed by that date.
   
Since the land acquisition in the present case is subsequent to
19.05.1988 the defence of benami which was otherwise available in a suit
or a claim is not available from 19.05.1988 i.e., from the date of coming
into force of Section 4 of the Act.
Therefore, in that view of the matter,
the 2nd respondent is precluded from making a claim that he has a right
in the property and that the property is held benami under exhibit B1 by
the appellant.
 Viewed thus, the legal position supports the case of the
appellant.  Hence, the plea of the 2nd respondent that he is entitled to a
share in the compensation for the acquired land, which is contrary to
law, cannot be countenanced by this Court.
It is not the case of the 2nd
respondent who is the brother of the appellant that the property is a
coparcenery property and is held by a Hindu undivided family for the
benefit of coparceners in the family.
 In the absence of any such
foundation in the pleadings, the 2nd respondent cannot make a claim to
the property.
 The learned Senior Civil Judge without properly
appreciating the legal position obtaining and only based on the
admissions which are not legally binding and merely on the ground that
earlier compensation for some other acquired land in an extent of
Ac.0.08 guntas was shared between the appellant and the 2nd respondent
had erroneously held that the 2nd respondent is also entitled to a share in
the compensation.  Such findings, which are contrary to law and which
are unsustainable, brook interference.
   Viewed thus, we find that there is merit in the appeal and
that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.  Therefore, we hold
that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to receive compensation for the
acquired land along with the appellant and that the appellant alone is
entitled to receive the entire compensation for the acquired land, having
acquired the absolute right, title and interest to the said land by virtue
of exhibit B1-registered sale deed.  The point is accordingly answered in
favour of the appellant.
   Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is
set aside holding that the appellant is exclusively entitled to the
compensation amount and that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to any
share in the compensation amount.  - -2015 Telangana & A.P, Msklawreprots

Note :-
Laws & Flaws
"In view of the said recitals in the said agreement, 
 the appellant had further agreed to pay half of the compensation in the submerged land ;"

Whether an agreement to share compensation is immovable property or movable property ?

Whether it requires Registration if it is consider as movable property ?

Whether this agreement can be considered as family settlement between two brothers to avoid disputes ?

When the agreement to share compensation requires no registration as it is for movable property 
and 
when it was proved that the agreement was as acted upon in earlier occasion also , mere denial of the same is sufficient to discard the claim for equal share.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.