Showing posts with label IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. Show all posts

Wednesday 29 April 2020

NOTES ON LEASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (S 105-117 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT Definition ( S.105)




Saturday, 2 June 2018

NOTES ON LEASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

(S 105-117 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT
Definition( S.105)
A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property for a certain time,or in perpetuity,in consideration of price paid or promised or money,a share of crop, service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions, to the transferor by transferee,who accepts the transfer on such terms.
In the case of a lease, the price is called the premium,and the money,share,service or other thing to be rendered is called the rent;the transferor is called the lessor,and the transferee is called the lessee.

The following are essential elements of a lease:-
1) The lessor-He must be competent to contract and he must have title or authority.
2) The lessee- He also must also be competent to contract at the date of execution of the lease. A sale or a mortgage to a minor is valid. But a lease to a minor is void, as the lease is to be executed both by the lessor and the lessee. (S 107)
3) The subject matter of the lease must be immovable property.
4)There must be transfer of a right to enjoy such property.
5) Duration of lease- A lease must be made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity.
6) Consideration- Like every agreement,a lease must have consideration, which may be premium plus rent,as well as premium alone or rent alone.
7) The lessee must accept the transfer.
8) It must be in mode indicated by S 107.

Read important judgment on lease:
Click here
Difference between agreement to lease and lease:-
An agreement to lease does not give rise to right in rem. It creates only a personal obligation, which may be enforced by a suit for specific performance under specific relief Act, provided that agreement to lease is in writing and is accompanied by delivery of possession. In this respect,it materially differs from an agreement to sell. The latter agreement may be specifically enforced even if oral and unaccompanied by delivery of possession;but not in respect of agreement to lease. A lease does but an agreement for lease does not establish the legal relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This is so, because a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy property, whereas an agreement to lease is not.
Difference between lease and licence:-
Ordinarily a lease is a grant of property, for a time by one who has a greater interest in the property, the consideration being usually the payment of rent. A licence ,on the other hand is governed by Indian easement Act, and is a permission to do some act which without such permission,would be unlawful. Both have certain elements in common,but the following are the points of difference between the two:
1) In a lease there is a transfer of an interest in the immovable property. In the case of a license, there is no transfer of interest, although the licensee acquires a right to occupy the property.
For determining whether an interest in land is transferred or not,the main test is the delivery of exclusive possession. If the exclusive possession is not with the grantee,and the subject matter is in control and possession of grantor, then it is a license and not a lease. It is always open to a licensor to have access to property, possession being with him,and not transferred to the licensee.
2)If during the continuance of the lease,any accretion is made to the property,such accretion is deemed to be comprised in the lease.A licensee has no property in the land,and therefore he acquires no right by accretion.
3) A lease is transferable and heritable. A licence being purely a personal privilege is non-transferable and non- heritable.
An exception is made in the case of a licence to attend a place of public entertainment,which can be transferred by licensee,unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied(S 56 of Indian easement Act).
4) A lease can be terminated by forfeiture. There is no corresponding provision in the case of licence in the Indian easement Act.
5) A lease can be terminated only in eight different ways as mentioned S 111 of transfer of property Act. A licence can be revoked at pleasure,unless(a) it is coupled with transfer of property and such transfer is in force;or (b) licensee acting upon the licence has executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. Therefore, unlike a lessee, a licensee is not entitled to a notice to quit before eviction.
6) Lessee's interest is not liable to be defeated by subsequent transfer of leased property as per S 109 of Transfer of property Act. A licence is determined when the grantor makes an assignment of subject matter of licence as per S 59 of Indian easement Act.
7) A lessee is entitled to maintain a suit in his own name against trespassers and strangers. A licence does not create an interest in property in favour of licensee and therefore,he is not entitled to maintain suits in his own name.
8) Death of either party does not affect a lease,whereas a licence is terminated in such circumstances.

Read important judgments on license:
Click here
Leases how made (S 107)
1) A lease of immovable property can be made from year to year,or for any term exceeding one year,or reserving yearly rent only by a registered instrument.
2) In any other case,either by a registered instrument,or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.
Duration and termination of lease S 106:-
1) A lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by six months notice.
2) A lease of immovable property for any other purpose is deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days notice.
S 106 also clarified that the period of notice mentioned above commences from date of receipt of notice. It is also provided that even if a short period is mentioned in the notice,as long as the suit or proceeding is filed after expiry of period stipulated above,the notice would not be invalid.
The above statutory presumption as to duration arise only when there is no agreement between the parties or a local law or usage to the contrary.

Read important judgments on S 106 of Transfer of property Act
Click here
Requisites of notice under S 106 of transfer of property Act.
1)Every notice under S 106 must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of person giving it,
2) Sent by post or delivered personally to lessee,or
3) affixed to conspicuous part of property.
Waiver of notice to quit as per S 113 of Transfer of property Act
Notice to quit is deemed to have been waived
1) when with the express or implied consent of the person to whom it is given,
2) the person giving it does an act showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting.
Rights and liabilities of lessor [S 108(a) to (c)]
1) the lessor is bound to disclose to the lessee, any material defect in the property with reference to its intended use which the former is and latter is not aware, and which the latter could not with ordinary care discover.{S 108(a)}.
A defect in the lesser's title can not be said to be material defect in the property within the meaning of this clause.
2) the lessor is bound on the lessee's request, to put him in possession of the property.{S 108(b)}
3) The lessor is also deemed to contract with the lessee that if the latter pays the rent reserved by the lease and performs the contract binding on the lessee,he may hold the property(during the time limited by the lease) without interruption: S 108(c).
This covenant is called a covenant for quiet enjoyment, and is absolute and unconditional. It protects the lessee against the disturbance of his possession by lessor or by person claiming under the lessor, but not against any disturbance by a trespasser.
Rights of lessee
1) If during the continuance of the lease, any accession is made to property, such accession is deemed to be comprised in lease.
2) If by fire, tempest or flood, or violence of an army or of mob or other irresistible force, any material part of the property is wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let,at the option of the lessee,the lease becomes void.(However,if injury is occasioned by the wrongful act or default of lessee,he is not entitled to avail himself of this benefit).
3) If the lessor neglects to make within a reasonable time after notice,any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from rent or otherwise recover it from the lessor.
4) If the lessor neglects to make any payment which he is bound to make,and which,if not made by him,is recoverable from the lessee or against the property,the lessee may make such payment himself and deduct it with interest from rent or otherwise recover it from the lessor.
5) the lessee may even after the termination of the lease, remove at any time whilst he is in possession of the property leased, all things which he has attached to the earth, provided he leaves the property in the state in which he received it.
6) When a lease of an uncertain duration determines by any means except due to fault of lessee,he or his legal representative is entitled to all the crops planted or sown by the lessee and growing upon the property when the lease determines, and to free ingress and egress to gather and carry them.
7) The lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease,the whole or any part of his interest in the property and any transferee of such interest or part may again transfer it. In such a case the lessee does not by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities attaching to the lease.
Liabilities of lessee
1) the lessee must disclose to lessor any fact which materially increases the value of such interest.
2) lessee must pay the premium and rent to lessor at proper time and place.
3) The lessee must keep the property in good condition. (reasonable wear and tear excepted).
4) If lessee becomes aware of any encroachment on the property or any proceeding to recover the property, he must inform the lessor about the same with reasonable diligence.
5) The lessee must use the property as a man of ordinary prudence would use his own, but he cannot use it for any other purpose or commit any act which may destroy or permanently injure the property.
6) Without the lessor's consent, the lessee can not erect any permanent structure on the property.
7) When the lease is over, the lessee must put the lessor in possession of the property.
Determination of lease
A lease terminates in eight ways:
1) by efflux of time.
2) If the duration of the lease is until the happening of some event-when that event happens.
Thus for instance,if a lease is for twenty years and at the same time made conditional upon life of lessee, the lease terminates on the death lessee, even if death of lessee takes place within stipulated period of twenty years; if the lessee does not die within this period lease terminates at the end of the period.
3)If the lessor's interest in the property is to terminate on the happening of some event- when that event happens.
This clause operates in cases where the lessor has only limited interest or limited power to grant a lease. Thus it has been held that a lease by hindu widow who is entitled only to a life-estate terminates on her death.
4) Merger that is when the interest of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property becomes vested at the same time in one person in same right.
Merger may take place either by act of parties or by operation of law.
5) By express surrender by lessee.
6) By implied surrender by lessee.
Thus if a lessee accepts from his lessor a new lease of leased property to take effect during the continuance of existing lease, this is an implied surrender of former lease, and such lease terminates thereupon.
7) By forfeiture
8) on the expiry of a notice to terminate the lease,or to quit (or of intention to quit) the property leased duly given by one party to the other.
A valid notice must satisfy the following three requisites Viz-
A) It must expressly convey the intention to terminate the tenancy.
B) It must specify the date on which the tenancy is to expire.
C) It must be unconditional. Thus a notice given by a tenant that he will quit when he gets another suitable accommodation is not valid.

Whether a Person who Contributed Money in Purchase of the Immovable Property can Retain its Possession




Whether a person who has contributed money in the purchase of the immovable property can retain its possession?

A contributor to the purchase consideration for immovable property, only has rights if any, to recover the said purchase consideration from the purchaser and does not acquire any rights in the immovable property or any right to retain possession thereof. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 2585/2012

Decided On: 24.01.2013

 K.L. Garg   Vs.  Rajesh Garg and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/0321/2013



1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of possession of a portion consisting of two bedrooms, common drawing-dining, kitchen and bathroom of flat on the second floor of property No. 21/13, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and for mesne profits/damages for use and occupation. It is the case of the plaintiff, that he is the owner of the said flat vide registered Sale Deed dated 18th October, 2004 copy whereof is filed along with the plaint; that the defendants no. 1 to 4 are the son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff on account of the said relationship had allowed the defendants to reside with him in the said flat; however the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants has soured and the plaintiff does not want the defendants to reside in his flat and though called upon the defendants to vacate the same, the defendants failed to do so. Summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief to restrain the defendants from parting with the possession of the said flat to any other person were issued though no interim relief granted.

2. The defendants have filed the written statement pleading, that the suit has been filed merely to harass them; that no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff against the defendants; that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concocted the story of the defendants ill treating or harassing the plaintiff; that the defendants no. 1 and 2 had contributed to the purchase consideration of the flat and the defendant no. 1 also used to pay the electricity bills of the said flat; that the plaintiff is a habitual litigant and had also lodged a complaint against another son namely Shri Pankaj Garg and with whom he subsequently compromised; that similarly earlier disputes had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendants and which have subsequently been compromised; that the suit is undervalued; that in fact the defendants had started living in the flat only at the instance of the plaintiff and that the defendants are looking after and caring for the plaintiff. The defendants however do not dispute the receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff demanding possession but allege the same to be false.

3. The suit was listed on 14th January, 2013 when finding that the defence of the defendants in the written statement of having contributed to the purchase consideration of the said flat while admitting the Title Deed with respect thereto to be in the name of the plaintiff only did not constitute any defence in law to the claim of the plaintiff for possession, the counsel for the defendants was asked to argue. On his request the matter was adjourned to today.

4. The counsel for the defendants, who states that he is the new counsel though has filed his Vakalatnama, has argued that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has drawn attention to para 4 of the plaint and contended that the plaintiff has falsely stated that the defendants had harassed the deceased wife of the plaintiff. It is argued that the relationship of the defendants with the deceased wife of the plaintiff, being the mother of the defendant no. 1 and mother-in-law of the defendant no. 2 was very good.

5. It has been enquired from the counsel for the defendants as to whether the said argument even if were to be accepted constitutes a defence to a suit for possession; a decree for suit for possession is not a discretionary one; if the plaintiff is found entitled to possession of a property, relief cannot be denied to him/her merely because he may have on some other aspects not relatable to possession, lied.

6. No reply is forthcoming.

7. This argument, also does not constitute any defence to the claim for possession.

8. Though the defendants have not filed any documents whatsoever, the counsel for the defendants has during the course of hearing handed over photocopy of a letter purported to be written by the plaintiff to the Editor of Veer Arjun Newspaper on 19th December, 2003 withdrawing the earlier advertisement disinheriting the defendants and stating "Shri Rajesh Garg and my grand children has full legal rights for moveable/immoveable property stands in my name i.e. K.L. Garg". A right in the property, on the basis of the said document is claimed.

9. The said document is taken on record.

10. Even though the procedure adopted by the defendants of handing document across the bar is not in consonance with the prescribed procedure but I am afraid even the said document does not show that the defendants have any right to retain possession of the flat aforesaid. All that the said document purports to do is to recall the earlier notice disinheriting the defendants. However, such inheritance can happen only on the demise of the plaintiff and not prior thereto.

11. A contributor to the purchase consideration for immovable property, only has rights if any, to recover the said purchase consideration from the purchaser and does not acquire any rights in the immovable property or any right to retain possession thereof. The only defence thus raised in the written statement is not a material one so as to invite framing of an issue and the plaintiff has become entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits.

12. The dispute raised in the written statement of under valuation of the suit is a vexatious one, bereft of any particulars. Nothing is stated, as to on the basis of which sale/purchase transaction, the valuation given by the plaintiff is incorrect.

13. Faced with the aforesaid, the counsel for the defendants states that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between all the family members and the original thereof is in the custody of the plaintiff though a copy thereof is in the custody of the sister of the defendant no. 1 and who is out of station and owing whereto the counsel could not bring the said MoU to the Court today.

14. There is no plea also in the written statement to the said effect.

15. The counsel for the defendants then seeks adjournment by seven days to amend the written statement.

16. The aforesaid request cannot be entertained. Suits cannot be kept pending after they have been heard and to allow parties to amend their pleadings.

17. The suit is thus decreed for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 and 2 for possession of flat aforesaid on the second floor of property No. 21/13, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. As per Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul MANU/SC/0335/1965 : AIR 1966 SC 735 and R.S. Maddanappa Vs. Chandramma MANU/SC/0356/1965 : AIR 1965 SC 1812, a decree for mesne profits follows a decree for possession. However an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 has to be held to determine the rate of mesne profits. Considering the nature of the dispute, it is not deemed appropriate at this stage to order such inquiry in as much as the suit has been decreed within six months of institution thereof. Liberty is however given to the plaintiff to apply for such inquiry if the defendants no. 1 and 2 resist the execution of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs equivalent only to court fee of Rs. 25,785/- paid on the plaint. Decree is confined against defendants no. 1 and 2 since the defendants No. 3 and 4 are minors and no steps were taken for appointment of their guardian. The decree sheet be drawn up.

18. The counsel for the defendants at this stage states that he has instructions from the defendants to state that they are willing to give an undertaking to vacate the said flat after the examination of the children (defendants no. 3 and 4) scheduled in March-April, 2013 are over. Liberty is granted to the defendants No. 1 and 2 to file affidavits of undertaking to the said effect and on filing whereof this request shall be considered.

Tuesday 28 April 2020

If Appeal is filed against Mode of Partition, it amounts to Automatic Stay

If appeal is filed against mode of partition, it amounts to automatic stay of proceedings, execution of instrument of partition is only a stage towards execution of order of partition - Possession even if delivered to parties before partition is made effective will not extinguish status as a co-sharer

Posted: 28 May 2016 08:15 PM PDT




PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Hemant Gupta, J.
RSA No. 3615 of 1987. D/d. 24.1.2005

Lal Chand (Dead) through LRs. - Appellants
Versus
Ganga Ram (Dead) through LRs. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mr. A.S. Tewatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

JUDGMENT


Hemant Gupta, J. - The plaintiff pre-emptor is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby his suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the land measuring 16 kanals 11 marlas being a co-sharer and thus have a preferential right to pre-empt the sale was dismissed in appeal by the first Appellate Court.
Read full Judgment »

Compiled by Puneet Batish, Advocate for Online Law Reporter 'http://law.geekupd8.com for providing latest updates on Criminal, Civil, Revenue, Immigration laws, how-to's, bare acts and much more.
High-Court

If appeal is filed against mode of partition, it amounts to automatic stay of proceedings, execution of instrument of partition is only a stage towards execution of order of partition - Possession even if delivered to parties before partition is made effective will not extinguish status as a co-sharer

 Before a secured asset is classified as NPA and some difficulty or any objection is pointed out by the borrower it must be expeditiously resolved with reasons to be communicated to the borrower
 Declaration of account as NPA without detailed consideration and without assigning reasons is arbitrary and illegal
 The decision of Bank in classifying an account as NPA must be fully in conformity with prudential norms of RBI
 Offence under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments is of civil nature - Court can impose fine payable as compensation to complainant without awarding jail sentence
 Meter defects - Testing of the meter should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative - A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of testing of meter

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Hemant Gupta, J.
RSA No. 3615 of 1987. D/d. 24.1.2005

Lal Chand (Dead) through LRs. - Appellants
Versus
Ganga Ram (Dead) through LRs. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mr. A.S. Tewatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate.


JUDGMENT


Hemant Gupta, J. - The plaintiff pre-emptor is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby his suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the land measuring 16 kanals 11 marlas being a co-sharer and thus have a preferential right to pre-empt the sale was dismissed in appeal by the first Appellate Court.
2. The only question which has been raised before the Courts below is whether the plaintiff was a co-sharer on the date of decree passed by the learned Trial Court. According to the defendant-vendee, the land was partitioned and thus the plaintiff ceased to be co-sharer on the date of the decree of the trial Court, whereas as per the plaintiff the land was not partitioned as no instrument of partition has been drawn so far.
3. The learned trial Court found that the instrument of partition has not been drawn which is not a formality. Reliance was placed upon a single Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court reported as Shri Khem Dutt v. Palika, 1984 R.R.R. 535 : 1982 PLJ 391, to hold that the instrument of partition has not been prepared so far and consequently the partition proceedings have not been finalised and thus the plaintiff continues to be a co-sharer and that he has a superior right of pre-emption. However, the learned first Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the defendant-vendee on the ground that the instrument of partition has been prepared and delivered to the parties on 16.2.1987. The possession was delivered as per the copy of report Roznamcha Vakiyati dated 3.4.1987 and thus the right of pre-emption of a co-sharer stands forfeited.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there is nothing on record that the instrument of partition was prepared in February, 1987. It is also argued that even if it is prepared in February, 1987 it will not defeat the right of the plaintiff as he continues to be co-sharer on all the three material dates i.e. on the date of sale, on the date of filing of suit and on the date of decree passed by the trial Court. Therefore, any loss of character as a co-sharer after passing of the decree by the learned Trial Court will not defeat the right of pre-emption.
5. In view of above arguments of the appellant the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal :
    Whether the suit of the plaintiff pre-emptor can be dismissed in an appeal on the basis or instrument of partition prepared after the decree passed by the trial Court ?
6. The respondent vendee sought partition of the suit land which was allowed by the Assistant Collector II Grade, Ballabgarh on 21.10.1986 wherein it was ordered that the revenue record in pursuance of the above partition be effected after Kharif, 1986 and that the instrument of partition be prepared after limitation for filing of appeal expires. Ex. P.7 is the memorandum of appeal against the said order passed by the Assistant Collector II Grade and Ex. P.8 is the order dated 24.11.1986 wherein the order passed by the Assistant Collector was stayed. The decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 17.1.1987. There is nothing on record to show that the appeal was decided before the decree was passed by the trial Court or that the instrument of partition was prepared before the said date with the effective date of partition prior to the decree passed by the trial Court.
7. The procedure for partition is contained in Chapter 9 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Section 121 of the said Act contemplates preparation of an instrument of partition after the partition is completed. The date on which the partition is to take effect is also to be recorded therein. Once instrument of partition is prepared, any owner or tenant to whom any land or portion of a tenancy as the case may be is allotted in proceedings for partition, shall be entitled to possession thereof as against other parties to the proceedings. Sections 121 and 122 of the Land Revenue Act reads as under :
    "121. INSTRUMENT OF PARTITION - When a partition is completed, the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition to be prepared, and the date on which the partition is to take effect to be recorded therein.
    122. DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY ALLOTTED ON PARTITION. - An owner or tenant to whom any land or portion of a tenancy, as the case may be, is allotted in proceedings for partition shall be entitled to possession thereof as against the other parties to the proceedings and their legal representatives and a Revenue Officer shall, on application made to him for the purpose by any owner or tenant at any time within three years from the date recorded in the instrument of partition the last foregoing section give effect to that instrument so far as it concerns the applicant as if it were a decree for immovable property."
8. It is not only an order of partition which is necessary to be passed but also the instrument of partition is required to be prepared. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show as to on which date, the appeal was decided or the instrument of partition was prepared. Even if the statement in the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is to be treated as correct, the instrument of partition was prepared after the decree was passed by the learned Trial Court. The question whether the instrument of partition is required to be prepared came up of consideration before a Division Bench of Lahore High Court in a judgment reported as Hadayat Khan v. Shahamand, AIR 1924 Lahore 155, wherein it has been held that even if the sharers took possession of the plots allotted to them before Kharif 1905, their possession up to that date was merely the possession as that of co- sharers.
9. It was held to the following effect while dealing with Section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act :
    "The present, however, is not such a case. There were no doubt proceedings taken with a view to effect partition long before Kharif 1905, but those proceedings culminated and found their ultimate result and expression in the instrument of partition, and that instrument provided that the land should remain joint up to Kharif 1905, and become severally only in that harvest. From this it follows that even if the sharers took possession of the plots allotted to them before Kharif 1905, their possession up to that date was merely the possession of co-sharers in separate possession of portions of the joint estate."
10. Said view has held the field and applied by the Revenue Courts within the State of Punjab. It is so apparent from an order passed by the Financial Commissioner Punjab in Kartar Singh v. Kapur Singh, 1971 P.L.J. 677. The said view has also been taken by Himachal Pradesh High Court in a judgment reported as Shri Khem Dutt v. Palika and another, 1984 R.R.R. 535 : 1982 P.L.J. 391 although dealing with Sections 133 and 134 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act which corresponds to the provisions of Section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Still further in Lala Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1992(1) RRR 231 (P&H) : AIR 1992 Punjab and Haryana 62, it has been held that the execution of instrument of partition is only a stage towards the execution of order of partition and is not appealable. It is formal order which is necessary to be prepared to recognise the fact of partition. A party to partition proceedings cannot raise the objection in drawing the instrument of partition. If the memorandum of appeal is filed against the mode of partition it amounts to an automatic stay of proceedings pending disposal of appeal.
11. A perusal of Section 122 of the Act shows that the right to take possession arises only on the basis of instrument of partition. Thus the preparation of instrument of partition is not a mere formality but is a necessary document to make a partition legally effective. The date from which the partition is to take effect is required to be indicated in the instrument of partition and possession even if delivered to the parties before the partition is made effective will not extinguish the status as a co-sharer.
12. Thus, the plaintiff was a co-sharer on the date of decree passed by the trial Court and thus has a right to pre-empt the sale. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored while allowing appeal of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is granted two months time to deposit the money in terms of the decree passed by the trial Court.

Appeal allowed.

Whether The Court Can Execute Injunction Decree Against Some of The Judgment Debtors if One of The JD is Dead

  The 3rd contention that the 1st Judgment Debtor (JD) having died and his LRs having not been brought on record, the Injunctive Decree is n...