The validity of decrees on unregistered documents hinges on their registrability under the Registration Act and the parties' original rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by defendant no. 1 to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees in a suit filed by respondent no. 1 for reconveyance of the suit land. The trial court held the plaintiff entitled to reconveyance and possession of the suit land from defendant no.1. The first appeal preferred by defendant no. 1 in the district court is dismissed, and the trial court’s decree is confirmed. Hence, this second appeal by defendant no.1.

2. By order dated 4^th March 1991 the second appeal was admitted on the question of law framed in ground no. xi(a). However, on perusal of the appeal memo, no such ground is numbered as xi(a). Hence, after hearing both parties, the following substantial questions of law were framed by order dated 28^th November 2024 :

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of reconveyance based on the document dated 13^th April 1967 which is an unregistered document ?

(ii) Whether the registered document dated 13^th April 1967 is a document of outright sale in favour of the defendant no. 1?

(iii) Whether the document dated 13^th April 1967 relied upon by the plaintiff be termed as a document of mortgage entitling the plaintiff to seek reconveyance from defendant no.1 ?

(iv) Whether the grounds raised on behalf of the appellants can be considered as a ground for remand by exercising powers under Rule 23A of Order XLI of CPC?

Facts in brief :

3. Respondent no. 1 is the original owner of the suit land who filed suit for reconveyance. The plaintiff contended that he was in need of money and therefore he obtained a loan from defendant no. 2 on 6^th May 1966 by mortgaging the suit land. According to the plaintiff, it was agreed that within five years, the plaintiff would return the loan amount of Rs.1000/- and defendant no. 2 would reconvey the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff was again in need of money, hence he demanded an amount of Rs . 2000/- from defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 was not in a position to provide an additional amount. Hence, defendant no. 1 who was a friend of plaintiff and defendant no. 2, agreed to give a loan amount of Rs.3000/- to the plaintiff. Hence, according to the plaintiff they agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 with a condition that within twelve years the plaintiff would repay the amount of Rs.3000/- and thereafter defendant no. 1 would reconvey the suit land to the plaintiff. Accordingly, two documents dated 13^th April 1967 were executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The plaintiff contended that when he demanded reconveyance, defendant no. 1 refused. Hence, the plaintiff issued notice on 13^th March 1979 calling upon defendant no.1 to reconvey the suit land. However, defendant no. 1 refused to reconvey, hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for reconveyance of the suit land.

4. Defendant no.1 filed a written statement and denied the claim. He denied all the transactions between the parties as pleaded by the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 contended that he purchased the suit land from defendant no.2 and thus the plaintiff had no locus to seek any reconveyance from defendant no.1. Defendant no. 2 filed his written statement and supported the plaintiff’s claim. The trial court accepted the plaintiff’s contention and decreed the suit for reconveyance and possession. The trial court accepted the execution of the agreement dated 13^th April 1967 between defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim of repayment of Rs.3000/- to defendant no. 1 in terms of a document dated 13^th April 1967 was disbelieved by the trial court. However, the trial court held that the