Ownership of immovable property cannot be established through an unregistered sale deed, which is inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Registration Act, affirming that possession follows title.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2014 passed in R.A.No.247/2012 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, and the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2012 passed in O.S.No.26/2005 by the learned I Additional, Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration of title, and for a permanent injunction in alternative, relief of possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property was the Government land bearing Sy.No.38 belonging to Moorandahalli Village. The Government formed sites in the said survey number in 1972. The B.D.O granted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and based on the grant certificate issued by the Government, the plaintiff's name is entered in the revenue records, and he is paying the tax. It is contended that the defendant attempted to trespass and damage the suit schedule property, and also that the defendant is highly influenced person in the locality and trying to fix the boundaries stone over the same. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title, injunction, and in alternative possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. (Initially, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, and subsequently, filed an application in I.A.No.4 for amendment and the said application came to be allowed vide order dated 16.06.2006. The plaintiff, by way of an amendment, sought a relief of declaration of title). The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record.

3.2. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,000/- and executed an unregistered sale deed dated 28.05.1987 and he delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. It is contended that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property based on unregistered sale deed dated 28.05.1987. The Panchayat Authorities have also issued Form No.9 and 10 which proves his possession over the property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.3. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues and additional issues:

Issues

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of defendant?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief as prayed?

4) To what decree or order?

Additional Issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit property?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and possession?

3.4. The original plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. In rebuttal, the defendant was examined himself as DW.1, examined three witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4, and marked