# Padam Chandra Sahu & Anr v. Smt. Suman Sahu & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1439
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-09
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9645 of 2019
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/padam-chandra-sahu-anr-v-smt-suman-sahu-ors-45505
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 -
documents
of
which
registration
is
compulsory - Section 47 - time from
which registered document operates -
Section 49 - Effect of non-registration of
documents required to be registered -
Section
49(b)
-
on
the
basis
of
unregistered document, no right can be
created - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -
Section 109 - Section 17 as well as
Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 -
rescue of the petitioners - provided suit
had been filed prior to registration of sale
deed i.e. before 25.6.2011 - not the case
of both the parties - accepted fact - suit
was filed in the month of July, 2012 after
registration of sale deed on 25.06.2011 -
Small Causes Court rightly allowed the
suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents
- Revisional Court dismissed the revision
- held - no illegality.(Para 16,22)

For the house in question, sale deed was drafted
and executed in the year 1995 - Sale deed was
registered on 25.6.2011 under the provisions of
Registration Act, 1908, after the decision in the suit
No. 341 of 2000 filed for mandatory injunction vide
order dated 24.7.2018 - on the date of filing of the
suit, sale deed was duly registered - the petitionerdefendants are having the knowledge of execution
of sale deed in favour of respondent-plaintiff no. 1.
(Para 15)

Held:- In light of Section 47 of the Registration Act,
1908, it is very much clear that a registered
document shall be given effect from the date of its
execution and not from the date of registration, in
case no registration is required and after registration,
it will operate from the date of its execution - six
months time granted to the petitioners to vacate the
house in question subject to payment of rent at the
rate of Rs. 500/- per month. (Para 20,24)

Matters Under Article 227 dismissed.(E-7)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

2 All. Padam Chandra Sahu & Anr. Vs. Smt. Suman Sahu & Ors.
1439
clear that in the event of any failure on the
part of any person to comply with an order
to pay maintenance allowance, without
sufficient
cause,
the
Magistrate
is
empowered to issue warrant for levying
the amount due to in manner provided for
levying fines for every breach of the order.
Section 421Cr.P.C. prescribes the manner
for levying fine and clause (a) of subSection (1) of Section 421 provides for
issuance of warrant for levy of the amount
by attachment and sale of any movable
property belonging to the offender. In
other words, in the event of any failure
without sufficient cause to comply with
the order for maintenance allowance, the
Magistrate is empowered to issue distress
warrant for the purpose of realization of
the amount, in respect of which default has
been made, by attachment and sale of any
movable property, that may seized in
execution of such warrant. Sub-section (3)
of Section 125 Cr.P.C. makes it further
clear that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
for
sentencing
such
person
to
imprisonment would arise only after the
maintenance allowance, in whole or in
part, remains unpaid after the maintenance
allowance, in warrant. It is only after the
sentence of imprisonment is awarded by
the Magistrate under sub-section (3) of
Section 125 that the occasion may arise for
issuance of warrant of arrest for bringing
the person concerned to Court for his
committal to prison to serve out the
sentence.

13. It is further apparent that the
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue
warrant of arrest straight way against the
person liable for payment of maintenance
allowance in the event of non-payment of
maintenance allowance within the time
fixed by the court without first levying the
amount due as fine and without making
any attempt for reaslization that fine in one
or both the modes for recovery of that fine
as provided for in clauses (a) or (b) of subSection (1) of Section 421 Cr.P.C. say by
issuance of distress warrant for attachment
and sale of movable property belonging to
the defaulter as contemplated under
Section 421 (1) (a) and without first
sentencing the defaulter to imprisonment
after the execution of the distress warrant.

14. In view of aforesaid, this Court
finds that the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Auraiya, it is apparently clear, has
misdirected himself in providing for
issuance of warrant of arrest in default of
payment of arrears maintenance allowance
within the time allowed by him in the
execution case concerned. The order
directing issuance of warrant of arrest is
patently illegal and not warranted by law.
Order dated 20th September, 2019 is
hereby set aside. Let the Principal Judge
pass a fresh order in the aforesaid
execution cases filed by opposite party
no.2 in light of the observations made
herein above.

15. Subject to the observations made
above, the present petition is allowed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1439

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9645 of 2019

Padam Chandra Sahu & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Suman Sahu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rishikesh Tiwari

A. Payment of rent and eviction -
Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 -
documents
of
which
registration
is
compulsory - Section 47 - time from
which registered document operates -
Section 49 - Effect of non-registration of
documents required to be registered -
Section
49(b)
-
on
the
basis
of
unregistered document, no right can be
created - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -
Section 109 - Section 17 as well as
Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 -
rescue of the petitioners - provided suit
had been filed prior to registration of sale
deed i.e. before 25.6.2011 - not the case
of both the parties - accepted fact - suit
was filed in the month of July, 2012 after
registration of sale deed on 25.06.2011 -
Small Causes Court rightly allowed the
suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents
- Revisional Court dismissed the revision
- held - no illegality.(Para 16,22)

For the house in question, sale deed was drafted
and executed in the year 1995 - Sale deed was
registered on 25.6.2011 under the provisions of
Registration Act, 1908, after the decision in the suit
No. 341 of 2000 filed for mandatory injunction vide
order dated 24.7.2018 - on the date of filing of the
suit, sale deed was duly registered - the petitionerdefendants are having the knowledge of execution
of sale deed in favour of respondent-plaintiff no. 1.
(Para 15)

Held:- In light of Section 47 of the Registration Act,
1908, it is very much clear that a registered
document shall be given effect from the date of its
execution and not from the date of registration, in
case no registration is required and after registration,
it will operate from the date of its execution - six
months time granted to the petitioners to vacate the
house in question subject to payment of rent at the
rate of Rs. 500/- per month. (Para 20,24)

Matters Under Article 227 dismissed.(E-7)

List of cases cited :-
1. Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another Vs.
Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others, 2015
LawSuit (SC) 998

2. Subraya M N Vs. Vittala M N and others,
2016 LawSuit (SC) 654

3. Ambica Prasad (Dr.) Vs. Md. Alam and
another, 2015 (2) ARC 313

4. Gausul Azam Vs. State of U.P. through
Secretary Revenue, Lucknow and others, 2019
(143) RD, 215

5. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar,
2015 (6) ALJ 284

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the house in question was
taken on rent by father of the petitioners
from one Smt. Shanti Devi-landlady. After
death of their father, petitioners inherited
the tenancy. In the year 2002, S.C.C. Suit
No. 45 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiffrespondents for payment of rent and
eviction, which was decreed by Judge,
Small Causes Court, Jhansi in favour of
the plaintiff-respondents vide judgment
and order dated 24.7.2018. Against the
said judgment, Revision No. 41 of 2018
was filed by petitioner-defendants, which
was dismissed vide judgment and order
dated 27.11.2019 confirming the judgment
and decree passed by the Judge, Small
Causes Court, Jhansi.

3. The basic argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that earlier a
sale deed was drafted and executed by
husband of respondent-plaintiff no. 1 in
2 All. Padam Chandra Sahu & Anr. Vs. Smt. Suman Sahu & Ors.
1441
the year 1995, but the same was not
registered. Ultimately, for registration of
said sale deed, Case No. 341 of 2000 (Om
Prakash Sahu Vs. Vinod Kumar Seth) was
filed for mandatory injunction. The said
suit was allowed and sale deed was
registered on 25.6.2011. He next submitted
that in the plaint rent was claimed by the
plaintiff-respondents w.e.f. 3.7.2009 to
13.6.2012. He further submitted that as
the sale deed was registered on 25.6.2011,
therefore, prior to that, the plaintiffrespondents were not entitled to recover
the rent and suit was not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
next
submitted
that
the
plaintiffrespondents were never the landlord of the
petitioners. In fact Smt. Shanti Devi was
the landlady of the house in question from
whom tenancy was obtained by father of
the petitioners, therefore, the suit is not
maintainable.

5. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon Sections 17 and 49 of
the Registration Act, 1908. Section 17
provides the list of documents of which
registration is compulsory. Section 49
provides the effect of non-registration of
documents required to be registered and
according
to
Section
49(b)
of
the
Registration Act, 1908, on the basis of
unregistered document, no right can be
created.

6. He has further placed reliance
upon judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and
another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao
and others, 2015 LawSuit(SC) 998 which
interpreted the Section 17 read with
Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908
and provides that unregistered document
cannot
be
admissible
in
evidence.
Paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 of the said
judgment are quoted below:-

"15. Section 17(1) (b) of the
Registration Act
mandates
that any
document which has the effect of creating
and taking away the rights in respect of an
immovable property must be registered
and Section 49 of the Act imposes bar on
the
admissibility
of
an
unregistered
document and deals with the documents
that are required to be registered u/s 17 of
the Act.

17. It is well settled that the
nomenclature given to the document is
not decisive factor but the nature and
substance of the transaction has to be
determined with reference to the terms
of
the
documents
and
that
the
admissibility of a document is entirely
dependent upon the recitals contained
in that document but not on the basis
of the pleadings set up by the party
who seeks to introduce the document in
question. A thorough reading of both
Exhibits B-21 and B-22 makes it very
clear that there is relinquishment of
right in respect of immovable property
through
a
document
which
is
compulsorily
registerable
document
and if the same is not registered,
becomes an inadmissible document as
envisaged under Section 49 of the
Registration Act. Hence, Exhibits B-21
and B-22 are the documents which
squarely fall within the ambit of
section 17 (i) (b) of the Registration
Act
and
hence
are
compulsorily
registerable documents and the same
are inadmissible in evidence for the
purpose of proving the factum of
partition between the parties. We are of
the considered opinion that Exhibits B
21 and B22 are not admissible in
1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence for the purpose of proving
primary purpose of partition.

18. Then the next question that
falls for consideration is whether these can
be used for any collateral purpose. The
larger Bench of Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala
Reddy Vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Vankat
Reddy, AIR 1969 (A.P.) 242 has held that
the
whole
process
of
partition
contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of
status, division of joint property by metes
and bounds and nature of possession of
various shares. In a suit for partition, an
unregistered document can be relied upon
for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of
title, nature of possession of various
shares but not for the primary purpose i.e.
division of joint properties by metes and
bounds. An unstamped instrument is not
admissible in evidence even for collateral
purpose, until the same is impounded.
Hence, if the appellants/defendants want
to mark these documents for collateral
purpose it is open for them to pay the
stamp duty together with penalty and get
the document impounded and the Trial
Court is at liberty to mark Exhibits B-21
and B- 22 for collateral purpose subject to
proof and relevance."

7. He has also placed reliance upon
another judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Subraya M N Vs. Vittala M N and
others,
2016 LawSuit(SC) 654
and
paragraph 16 of the said judgment also
interpreted Section 17 read with Section
49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and says
that
the
document
which
was
not
registered, is not admissible in evidence
and therefore, cannot be produced for
evidence, therefore, the respondent is not
entitled to recover the rent from the
petitioners prior to date of registration and
plaint is liable to be dismissed and revision
is liable to be allowed. Paragraph 16 of the
said judgement is quoted below;

"16. Under Section 17 of the
Registration Act, the documents which
purport or operate to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish any right, title
or interest of the value of one hundred
rupees and upwards, are to be registered.
Under Section 49 of the Registration Act
no document required by Section 17 or by
any provision of the Transfer of Property
Act to be registered shall be received as
evidence of any transaction affecting an
immovable property. As provided by
Section 49 of the Registration Act, any
document, which is not registered as
required
under
the
law
would
be
inadmissible in evidence and cannot
therefore be produced and proved under
Section 91 of the Evidence Act."

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners and placed reliance upon
Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908
which deals with time from which
registered document operates. Section 47
of the Registration Act, 1908 is quoted
below:-

"47.
Time
from
which
registered
document
operates.-A
registered document shall operate from the
time from which it would have commenced
to operate if no registration thereof had
been required or made, and not from the
time of its registration."

9. He submitted that the present suit
was filed in the month of July, 2012
whereas the said sale deed was registered
on 25.6.2011, therefore, when the suit was
filed, the sale deed was duly registered
2 All. Padam Chandra Sahu & Anr. Vs. Smt. Suman Sahu & Ors.
1443
under the provisions of Registration Act,
1908. He further submitted that once there
is no dispute on the point that at the time
of filing of the suit sale deed was
registered, the arguments raised by learned
counsel for the petitioners have no force
and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed. He further submitted that by
perusal of the written statement, it is very
much clear that there is no dispute on the
point that Smt. Shanti Devi was the
landlady and thereafter the petitioners
obtained sale deed of the house in
question, which is duly registered against
which no cancellation application is
pending. Once this fact is not disputed that
Smt. Shanti Devi is the landlady and sale
deed was registered under the provisions
of
Registration
Act,
1908,
only
information of change of landlord is
required to the petitioners for tenancy
purpose.

10. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Ambica Prasad (Dr.)
Vs. Md. Alam and another, 2015 (2) ARC
313 which provides that transferee of
lessor's right in favour of the transferee,
the latter gets all rights and liabilities of
the lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy
and Section 109 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 does not insist that
transfer will take effect only when the
tenant attorns. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
said judgment are quoted below:-

"9. On the question of tenancy,
both the trial court and the High Court
have not considered the provision of
Section 109 of the Transfer of Property
Act.

"109.
Rights
of
lessor's
transferee.-If the lessor transfers the
property leased, or any part thereof, or
any part of his interest therein, the
transferee, in the absence of a contract to
the contrary, shall possess all the rights,
and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all
the liabilities of the lessor as to the
property or part transferred so long as he
is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not,
by reason only of such transfer cease to be
subject to any of the liabilities imposed
upon him by the lease, unless the lessee
elects to treat the transferee as the person
liable to him:

Provided that the transferee is
not entitled to arrears of rent due before
the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not
having reason to believe that such transfer
has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the
lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent
over again to the transferee.

The lessor, the transferee and the
lessee may determine what proportion of
the premium or rent reserved by the lease
is payable in respect of the part so
transferred, and, in case they disagree,
such determination may be made by any
Court having jurisdiction to entertain a
suit for the possession of the property
leased.

10.
From
perusal
of
the
aforesaid Section, it is manifest that after
the transfer of lessor's right in favour of
the transferee, the latter gets all rights and
liabilities of the lessor in respect of
subsisting tenancy. The Section does not
insist that transfer will take effect only
when the tenant attorns. It is well settled
that a transferee of the landlord's rights
steps into the shoes of the landlord with all
the rights and liabilities of the transferor
landlord in respect of the subsisting
tenancy. The section does not require that
the transfer of the right of the landlord can
take effect only if the tenant attorns to him.
Attornment by the tenant is not necessary
1444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to confer validity of the transfer of the
landlord's rights. Since attornment by the
tenant is not required, a notice under
Section 106 in terms of the old terms of
lease by the transferor landlord would be
proper and so also the suit for ejectment."

11. He has also placed reliance upon
judgment of this Court in the case of
Gausul Azam Vs. State of U.P. through
Secretary Revenue, Lucknow and others,
2019 (143) RD, 215 in which it was held
that once a sale deed is registered even at a
later date, it will operate from the date of
its execution. Paragraph 15 of the said
judgment is quoted below:-

"15. There is no doubt or
ambiguity in holding that a sale becomes
complete
only
after
its
registration.
Section 47 of the Registration Act quoted
above, clearly states that a registered
document operates from the time when it
would have commenced to operate if no
registration was required or made and not
from the date of its registration. Mere
execution of a sale deed without its
registration does not make the sale
complete, however, once a sale deed is
registered even at a later date, it will
operate from the date of its execution."

12.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has further placed reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in the case
of Kanhaiya Lal Sharma Vs. Dr. Sushil
Kumar, 2015 (6) ALJ 284 which provides
that in view of Section 109 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882, the attornment takes
place by operation of law. There is no need
of consensual attornment. Paragraph 7 of
the said judgment is quoted below:-

"7. The trial court has held that
Smt. Shivmurti Devi had executed a sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent
in September, 1990. This finding has not
been assailed before this court. As such,
even if for argument sake, the agreement
for sale (Paper No. 47-Ga) and the
possession memo (Paper No. 48-Ga) are
ignored from consideration, it would have
no effect on the title of the plaintiffrespondent over the demised premises. It
has been held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Mohar Singh v. Devi Charan that
in view of section 109 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, the attornment takes
place by operation of law. There is no need
of consensual attornment. Same view has
been taken by a three Judges bench
judgment in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v.
Bibi Husn Bano. In Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd.
Choudhari
v.
Gundappa
Amabadas
Bukate, the Supreme Court has held that
liability to pay rent to the assignee
landlord is postponed till the knowledge of
transfer is gained by the tenant, but it does
not have the effect of postponing the
assignment or transfer of property. A
specific finding has been recorded by the
trial court that the petitioner came to know
about assignment on service of notice
upon him in January 1997 and again in
July 1997. It was not necessary for
establishing relationship of landlord and
tenant that there should have been
payment of rent by the petitioner to the
plaintiff, as the attornment had taken place
by
operation
of
law.
On
gaining
knowledge of the transfer, the liability to
pay rent comes into existence and the
petitioner should have tendered rent to the
plaintiff. However, having failed to do so,
inspite of notice of demand admittedly
served upon him in January, 1997 and
again in July 1997, which notice has also
been held to be served on the petitioner,
there was a clear default in payment of
rent. Concededly, no rent was deposited by
2 All. Padam Chandra Sahu & Anr. Vs. Smt. Suman Sahu & Ors.
1445
the petitioner under Section 30 or in the
suit, on the date of first hearing. Thus,
there was a clear default in payment of
rent, within the meaning of Section
20(2)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The trial
court was fully justified in decreeing the
suit for arrears of rent and for ejectment."

13. He also submitted that by perusal
of the written statement filed by the
petitioners, it is also clear that they had
full knowledge about both the facts that
earlier Smt. Shanti Devi was the landlady
and the plaintiff-respondent had purchased
the said house in question after taking loan
of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitionersdefendant, therefore, in light of Section
109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
as well as law laid down by Apex Court
and this Court, tenancy is established
between the petitioners and respondents,
therefore,
no
separate
agreement
is
required and under such facts, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

14.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners in his rejoinder argument could
not dispute the factual position raised by
the counsel for respondents, but reiterated
the legal position as well as judgments
relied upon.

15. I have considered the rival
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record as well as
judgments
relied
upon
by
them.
Undisputed facts of the case are that Smt.
Shanti Devi was the landlady of the house
in question and further for the very same
house in question, sale deed was drafted
and executed in the year 1995. Sale deed
was registered on 25.6.2011 under the
provisions of Registration Act, 1908, after
the decision in the suit No. 341 of 2000
filed for mandatory injunction vide order
dated 24.7.2018. It is also undisputed that
on the date of filing of the suit, sale deed
was duly registered and further no dispute
is pending in any court of law with regard
to genuineness of the sale deed. It is also
not disputed that the petitioner-defendants
are having the knowledge of execution of
sale deed in favour of respondent-plaintiff
no. 1.

16. In light of undisputed facts, the
arguments raised by learned counsel for
the petitioners does not help him. Section
17 as well as Section 49 of the
Registration
Act,
1908
and
its
interpretation by the Apex Court might
come to the rescue of the petitioners
provided the suit had been filed prior to
registration of sale deed i.e. before
25.6.2011, but here it is not the case of
both the parties, it is accepted fact that the
suit was filed in the month of July, 2012
after registration of sale deed.

17. The Apex Court in the matter of
Ambica Prasad (supra) has considered the
issue of tenancy after considering the
provisions of Section 109 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, the Court had held that
after the transfer of lessor's right in favour
of the transferee, the later gets all rights
and liabilities of the lessor in respect of
subsisting tenancy and Section does not
insist that transfer will take effect only
when the tenant attorns.

18. This Court in the case of Gausul
Azam (supra) has clearly held that once
the sale deed is registered even a later
date, it will operate from the date of its
execution. Similarly so far as the landlord
and tenant relationship is concerned, this
fact is not disputed in light of written
statement
filed
by
the
petitionerdefendants that Smt. Shanti Devi was the
1446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
original owner of the house in question
and the plaintiff-respondents have taken
loan of Rs. 10,000/- to purchase the house
in question from Smt. Shanti Devi. They
have also full knowledge of execution of
the sale deed, therefore, relationship of
landlord
and
tenant
is
very
well
established from the date of knowledge
and for that further attornment is not
required.

19. This Court has considered the
same issue in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal
Sharma (supra) that in light of Section
109 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the
attornment takes place by operation of law
and given specific finding relying upon
certain other judgments that liability to pay
rent to the assignee landlord is postponed
till the knowledge of transfer is gained by
the tenant, but it does not have the effect
of postponing the assignment or transfer of
property.

20. In light of Section 47 of the
Registration Act, 1908, it is very much
clear that a registered document shall be
given effect from the date of its execution
and not from the date of registration, in
case no registration is required and after
registration, it will operate from the date of
its execution. Meaning thereby, after
registration there would be no ambiguity
and document shall be treated very well
valid from the date of execution and not
from the date of registration. The same
was interpretation by this Court also in the
matter of Gausul Azam (supra).

21. Section 109 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 also provides that
after transfer of rights of lessor to
transferee, transferee shall possess all
rights and liabilities of lessor for the
purpose of existing tenancy and there is
nothing in the section which provides
that transfer will be given effect only
tenant attorns the same.

22. In the present case too, once the
facts are undisputed with regard to
ownership
of
Smt.
Shanti
Devi,
thereafter sale deed was executed in
favour of respondent-plaintiff no. 1, its
registration
and
further
about
the
knowledge of transfer of right from Smt.
Shanti Devi to plaintiff-respondent no. 1,
in light of provision of Section 47 of
Registration Act, 1908 read with Section
109 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as
well as law laid down by this Court, the
Judge Small Causes Court has rightly
allowed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff-respondents
and
Revisional
Court dismissed the revision. Therefore,
I find no illegality in the impugned
orders dated 24.7.2018 and 27.11.2019
passed by the courts below. The writ
petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to cost.

23. At this stage, learned counsel
for the petitioners requested that the
petitioners
may
be
granted
some
reasonable time to vacate the house in
question.

24. Considering the request of
learned counsel for the petitioners, six
months time from today is granted to
the petitioners to vacate the house in
question subject to payment of rent at
the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. They
shall also file an undertaking before
the court below to this effect. In case,
undertaking
is
not
filed
by
the
petitioners, the plaintiff-respondents
are free to proceed for eviction of the
house in question
----------
2 All. Suhail Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1447
(2020)02ILR A1447

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 470 of 2020

Suhail Ahmad & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, Sri Vimal Chandra
Pathak

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal
CodeSections 323, 504, 506 & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of
S.C./S.T Act,- Appeal against conviction.

The legal position for quashing of the
proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be
applied
by
the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie
establishes the offence and the chances of
ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing
criminal proceedings to be continue. The
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three
circumstances
under
which
the
inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect
an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of High
Court is very wide but should be exercised very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice for
which the court alone exists. (Para 8)

The High Court would not embark upon an
inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Court.
The interference at the threshold of quashing
of the criminal proceedings in case in hand
cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses
prima facie commission of an offence. The
applicants have ample opportunity to raise all
the objections at the appropriate stage. (Para
9)

Application u/s 482 disposed of. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Gyan Singh Vs. St. of Punj. & others 2012
(10) SCC 303,

2. R. P. Kapoor Vs. St. of Punj., AIR 1960 S.C.
866,

3. St. of Har. Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl) 426,

4. St. of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl)
192,

5. S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. St.of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Naheed Ara
Moonis, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed
today on behalf of the applicants is taken
on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, the learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant with a prayer to
quash the proceeding pursuant to the
charge sheet dated 10.10.2017 in S.T. No.
69 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.
1244 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Suhail
Ahmad) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
& 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of S.C./S.T Act at
Police Station Dudhara, District Sant
Kabir Nagar pending in the court of
District and Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir
Nagar.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicants that the opposite