1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the XIth District Judge, District - Indore in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.15/2024, whereby the appeal has been allowed and the order passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Junior Division in RCS No.1013-A/2023 has been set aside.

2. Facts of the case reveal that the respondent / plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner / defendant with respect to eastern side of shop located on the first floor of House No.43/5, Samvid Nagar, Kanadia Road, Indore.

3. Facts further reveal that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for temporary injunction on the grounds that the plaintiff's house has two room and a bathroom on the ground floor and two shops on the first floor, which are in possession of the plaintiff. One of these shops facing east side has been rented to defendant for Rs.8,000/- per month, where the defendant is running business under the name 'Fist World'. The tenancy agreement with the defendant is oral the tenancy starts from first day of every month. On 04.06.2023, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant by registered post demanding payment of the outstanding rent and termination of the tenancy and further vacate the shop and hand over the physical possession of the shop. The defendant did not respond to the same and trying to alter the structure of the shop.

4. The defendant filed a reply to the aforesaid application and a prayer has been made that the application be dismissed.

5. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 14.12.2023, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2023, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge on the ground that the agreement presented by the defendant was not executed before the legal competent authority and the learned trial Court has erred in relying on it. The defendant presented a sale agreement which purports to be between Shri Balram Gaud & Shri Manoj Diwan S/o of Shri Kishanlal Diwan and the trial Court has erred in treating this as registered agreement.

7. After appreciating the evidence that came on record, the learned District Court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the order dated 14.12.2023, meaning thereby, allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2. Hence, the present miscellaneous petition is before this Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The undisputed facts reveal that respondent / plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner / defendant. Since the defendant was trying to alter the construction of the shop in question, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge which was opposed by the defendant by way of reply and vide order dated 26.07.2024, the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Civil Judge was set aside.

10. The record of the case reveals that the building in question was constructed by the father of the plaintiff late Kishanlal who passed away on 21.11.2012 and since death, the plaintiff and her brother are resident jointly. To supported her claim, the plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of the lease deed in her father's name and death certificate of her brother Mukesh and Manoj. Since the defendant is not able to refute these documents, therefore, it is established that the plaintiff has constructed the building over land which was obtained by the Kishanlal through lease deed. The defendant has not paid the rent since last nine months and thus, owes her Rs.72,000/- in rent arrears. From the outset, the defendant is claiming possession of the suit property as its owner. It is also established that the defendant is not paying the rent of the suit property to the plaintiff and without any authority, the defendant has altered the nature of the property which caused inconvenience and financial loss to the plaintiff. On such premises the learned District Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Court.

11. The defendant Akash Gaur has submitted a copy of sale agreement and possession receipt document to substantiate his claim, according to which he purchased the property from Manoj for consideration of Rs.12,40,000/-. According to the defendant, full price of the property has been paid to Manoj. The learned District Court has held that transfer of property worth one hundred rupees or more can only effected to a registered sale deed. A sale agreement does not confer any title over the suit property. The sale agreement dated 10.07.2019 does not mention the delivery of possession to the defendant by Manoj at the time of execution and same creates a doubt that possession receipt documents was executed separately. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has failed to clarify whether the entire price of the disputed property has been paid to Manoj.

12. Section 17 of the Registration Act is reproduced below:-

          ''17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. --(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:--

          (a) instruments of gift of immovable property;

          (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

          (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and

          (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

          3(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:

          Provided that the 4[State Government] may, by order published in the [Official Gazette], exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees. (1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (48 of 2001) and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.]

          (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to--

          (i) any composition deed; or

          (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or

          (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or

          (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or

          (v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or

          (vi) any decree or order of a Court 3[except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or

          (vii) any grant of immovable property by 4[Government]; or

          (viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or

          (ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871 (26 of 1871), or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (19 of 1883); or

          (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884 (12 of 1884), or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or 5[(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or

          (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or

          (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.''

13. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law [17 (1A)], the learned District Judge has not committed any error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Civil Court. Since the sale deed is not registered, therefore, the same has no effect. The findings of fact arrived at by learned District Judge is just and proper and does not suffer from any patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, the same is hereby upheld.

14. In view of the above, Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.