- (1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Chanan Singh Appellant for possession of a house sold to him by one Nihal Chand by a registered deed dated 26-8-2003 for Rupees 2000. Sham Lal the contesting Defendant is also a vendee of the house from the same Nihal Chand by an unregistered aale-deed dated 27-1-2002 for Rupees 900. The suit wag resisted on the basis of this unregistered sale deed followed by possession and it was inter alia pleaded that the Defendant had made certain improvements which had not been objected to by the vendor or his subsequent vendee, the Plaintiff. The trial Sub-Judge holding that the possession of the Defendant under the unregistered sale deed which was compulsorily registrable, did not pass any title and that a subsequent vendee even with notice would be entitled to oust him, decreed the suit subject to payment of Rs. 255 as costs of the improvements. Both the parties went in appeal. The District Judge was of the opinion that the proviso added to Section 49, Registration Act by XXI [21] of 1929 made the prior unregistered sale deed admissible in evidence of part performance of the contract for purposes of Section 53A, T.P. Act, and holding that the Plaintiff had notice of the prior sale non-suited him under Section 53A, T.P, Act. This is Defendant's appeal.
(2.) The facts of the case stated above are admitted by the counsel of the parties and it is further conceded by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the proviso added to Section 49 by the Amending Act of 1929 and the Transfer of Property Act were not enforced in the erstwhile Patiala State to which this case belongs. The District Judge was thus not right in basing his conclusions on the proviso to Section 49, Registration Act, and Section 53A, T.P. Act, and the case has to be decided on the law as it stood before the amendment made in 1929. It may be remembered that Section 53A, T.P. Act, and the proviso to Section 49, Registration Act, were added by Section 10, T.P. Act (Amendment) Supplement Act of 1929 which has not so far been enforced in the State or in the Union. The cases, therefore, on which reliance has been placed by the District Judge and which ware decided by applying these provisions of law would not be of any help in deciding this case.
(3.) It cannot be denied that the prior sale deed which affected immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 was compulsorily registrable under Section 17, Registration Act, and, therefore, under Section 49 could not affect the property transferred nor could be received as evidence of the transaction. The learned Counsel for the Respondent at the first instance tried to make a futile attempt to avoid this strict provision of the Law of Registration by contending that the Defendant was holding the property under an oral sale, completed by delivery of possession and that the sale deed in his favour was only to confirm the oral sale that had already been completed, A simple reading of Ex. D-A, the sale deed in question, shows that it wa3 by itself a dispositive document and did not make mention of any previous sale. The written statement of the Defendant also makes no mention of any such oral sale and the point has been taken up for the first time in this appeal. In cl. 1 (g) of the written statement the Defendant stated that he had become owner of the house by the sale deed dated 27-1-2002 executed in his favour by Nihal Chand for Rs. 900, which clearly means that this sale deed was pleaded to be the origin of his title. The moment an oral contract is reduced to writing it is not open to any of the parties thereafter to prove the terms of the contract by referring to any original oral agreement Section 91, Evidence Act, would stand in his way and he would be precluded from proving the terms of the transaction otherwise than by the deed itself.;