THAKUR KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) versus ARVIND KUMAR

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 07-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
THAKUR KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) 
v. 
ARVIND KUMAR 
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 
[R.~. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950/Registration 
Act, 1908/Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sections 6/471107,117-Lease of 
land-Deed executed but registered subsequently--Deemed registration as on 
A 
B 
the date of execution-Hence property did not vest in State, even though C 
registration was made subsequent to the Abolition Act-Agricultural leases 
excluded from Transfer of Property Act. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 136--Evidence led by parties before the lower courts-Reap-
D 
preciation of under special leave jurisdiction-Not pennissible. 
The respondent-Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a certain land. 
It was claimed that the land in dispute was leased to the plaintiff by the 
Iamberdar and the deed was executed in 1949 and registered in 1950; that E 
the appellant who was an agent of the Respondent, was permitted to be set 
up a brick kiln in the land in 1960-61; and that the appellant had an 
adjoining land and a trespassed initially on 0.14 acres and made further 
encroachments on 0.42 acres. Appellant contested the suit. He claimed that 
the deed having been registered on 3.4.1950, it was void under Section 6 of 
the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietory Rights Act, 1950 as the land F 
had vested in the State on 31.3.1950. 
Tlie Trial Court held that the lease deed was executed on 5.12.1949 
and even if it was registered subsequently, it would have been deemed to 
have been registered on 5.12.1949 and therefore the provisions of Section G 
6 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietory Rights Act, 1950 did 
not stand in th~ way of the respondent acquiring title to the land. But the 
suit was dismissed on the finding that the appellant had acquired rights 
by adverse possession. In appeal the order was set aside and the suit was 
decreed. The appellate court affirmed the finding on title. The High Court 
upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 
H 
1'99 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that a 
registered document shall operate from the time it would have commenced 
to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not 
from the time of its registration. It is well established that a document so 
B long it is not registered is not valid yet once it is registered it takes effect 
from the; date of its execution. Since, admittedly, the lease deed was 
executed on 5th December, 1949, the plaintiff after registration of it on 3rd 
April, 1950 become owner by operation of law on the date when the deed 
was executed. Therefore, the land did not vest in the State. (202-A to CJ 
c 
Ram Saran Lall and Others v. Mst. Domini Kuer and others, AIR 
(1961) SC 1749 and Nanda Ballabh Gururani v. Smt Maqbool Begum, 
(1980) ILJ (SC) 597, relied on. 
2. Since under Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act the 
D agricultural leases are excluded from operation of the Act, the provisions 
of Section 107 did not apply to it. (202-D] 
3. Mere possession for howsoever length of time d~ not result in 
converting the permissive possession into adverse possession. Apart from 
it, the Appellate Court has gone into detail and after considering the 
E 
evidence on record found it as a fact that the possession of the appellant 
was not adverse. (202-B] 
4. Relying on the evidence led on behalf of the parti~s before the 
lower courts is not permissible even. in second appeal, what to say of the 
p 
jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
G 
Further, the appellant has not suffered any Injustice which requires to be 
remedied by this Court. (203-A, ·n1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. U,76 of 
1977. 
From the Judgment and order dated 18.3.77 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in SA. No. 550 of 1970. 
B. Sen and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant. 
H 
S.S. Kanduja for the Respondent. 
T.K. SINGH (DEAD)v. ARVIND KR. 
201 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In this defendant's appeal directed against the judgment and order 
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the question that arises for con-
sideration is if the High Court committed any error of law in upholding 
A 
the order of the Appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respon-
B 
dent on finding that the defendant-appellant had not acquired any rights
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.