Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant in a declaratory suit.
(2.) LACHMI Ram, plaintiff had a decree against Har Sahai and wanted to execute the same by attachment of half share in the shop described in the plaint situted in the district of Alwar. The decree was dated 29th August. 1932. Johrilal, defendant objec-ted to the attachment of the half share in the said shop on the ground that the sale of the share of Har sahai had been affected as far back to 22nd January, 1922 by a registered instrument executed by Har Sahai. The objection was allowed on 31st May, 1945, where upon the decree-holder Lachhmi Ram instituted the present suit under O. 21, r. 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, impleading Johrilal, objector as defendant No. 1, and Jagdish and Bala Sahai sons of Har Sahai as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The prayer was that the said half share in the shop was liable to attachment and sale in execution of the plaintiff's decree. Johrilal alone contested the suit. He reiterated his claim to the shop on the basis of conveyance dated 22nd January, 1922, executed by Har Sahai. It was also pleaded that the said Har Sahai having parted with the possession under the sale-deed and the defendant having paid the amount and got into possession, and that possession as owner having extended beyond a period of 12 years, conferred absolute right of ownership on the said contesting defendant even if there was any defect in the conveyance. The contention on behalf of the plaintiffs was that the sale had not been completed, as the vendee, had not obtained the patta according to the law in force in Alwar. It was also contended that the document of sale contained a provision, whereby the vendor agreed to repay the amount of consideration with interest at 1 per cent per mensem in case the vendor did not make an application for issue of the Patta or if for any reason the Patta would not be issued and that in such contingency the vendor will be entitled to an adjustment of rent at - /12/ - per mensem for the occupation of the shop by the vendee. It was urged that such agreement, as stated above, did not amount to a complete sale without the issue of the Patta by the Nazool Department and the relationship of the parties to the agreement was as of landlord and the tenant. The learned Munsiff of Rajgarh decided the case on 13th October, 1948, and held that in the absence of the Patta, the sale was not complete. He also held that the possession of the vedee was not adverse to that of the vendor in view of the stipulations mentioned above. He accordingly decreed the suit and gave a declaration that the property was liable to attachment and sale in execution of the plaintiffs against the deceased Har Sahai. Johrilal filed an appeal. The learned District Judge by judgment of 18th January, 1950, concurred with the findings of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. Johrilal has come in second appeal. The sale-deed purports to have been executed by Har Sahai on behalf and one Bala Bux stated to be the son of Badri, and purports to transfer the entire shop to Mangilal Laxmi Narain, predecessor-in-title of Johrilal. The document is registered and its genuineness has been proved. The first point for determination is whether it was necessary under the law in force at the time of the execution of the sale-deed that the sale could only be completed by obtaining a Patta from the Nazool Department. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 relied on two decisions of the former High Court of Alwar, one of which related to the other half share of the shop. It appears from a perusal of the judgment dated 19th February, 1941, that the shop originally belonged to Chhaju who had three sons Nana, Har Sahai and Gangal. Nana left a son Badri. On Badri's death his heirs were Har Sahai and Gangal, both brothers of Nana. One Ram Sahai had a decree against Gangal and in execution thereof half share of the shop was attached. There was an objection and thereafter a declaratory suit. It was held by the High Court of Alwar that Gangal's share was not conveyed by the deed of sale of 22nd January, 1922, which is Ex. D 1 in the present case. The finding was sufficient for the disposal of the case but there was also an observation that according to decision in appeal No. 23 the vendee did not acquire a perfect title in the absence of issue of Patta by the Nazool Department. The judgment in appeal No. 23 is not on record but learned counsel for the respondent read it from the brief. That judgment proceeds on the footing that there was a provision in clause 5 of Hidayatnama Sareshte Nazool Alwar of 1882 that the sale would not become complete unless the Patta was obtained. This Hidayatnama was also produced by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, and we have carefully gone through its provisions. While Hidayatnama does speak of obtaining a Patta by a transferee by sale or mortgage, none of the clauses say that the transfer if made by a registered instrument does not stared complete if the Patta is not obtained, nor does it say that the sale-deed thus registered is hot admissible in evidence without the issue of the Patta in favour of the vendee. The provisions appear to be for the benefit of the transferee, as according to Hidayatnama disputes relating to title or pre-emption are also to be settled before the issue of Patta. Whatever may be the utility of the Patta proceedings, the Hidayatnama Sareshta Nazool contains no provision,which may go to support the contention that the sale remains incomplete without acquiring the Patta from the Nazool Department. The next contention is that the parties had contemplated that the sale will not be complete until the Patta was obtained and that the stipulation in the document of 22nd January, 1922, for repayment of consideration in case of non-issue of Patta, made it only an agreement to sell and not a sale-deed itself. It is possible that the parties at that time thought that it was necessary for them to obtain a Patta and the vendor agreed to indemnify the vendee by damages as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, but that stipulation did not detract from the agreement of conveyance recorded in the document. The stipulation was for the benefit of the vendee in case he desired to repudiate the transaction on account of the non-issue of the Patta for any default or defect in the title of the vendor. Be that as it may the true effect of the document was that it amounted to a conveyance of property having been executed in a proper manner and registered according to law. As stated above, it was usual for such document to be followed up by proceedings for obtaining Patta, but the non-acquisition of the Patta did not detract from the title which already became vested in the vendee by the conveyance. It may be mentioned that the possession obtained by the vendee under the document of 22nd January, 1922, was as owner and it was adverse to the vendor, and even if there was any defect, although we have held that there was not, the title of the vendee as owner became perfect by a lapse of more than 12 years, when it was sought to be attached in 1944 by the present decree-holder in execution of the decree. In either view of the case, the decree-holder was not entitled to attach and affect the sale of the property in execution of the decree against Har Sahai deceased. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgement and decree of the lower courts are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout. . ;