An unregistered sale deed, which is inadmissible in evidence to prove title, cannot be used for a collateral purpose, such as showing the nature and character of possession thenceforth held by the party, if the transaction required compulsory registration under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908.

B.D.Singh, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court affirming those of the trial Court.

2. In order to appreciate the points of law urged in this appeal, it is necessary to state, briefly, the facts. The plaintiffs-appellants had instituted a suit for declaration of their title and for confirmation of possession over the tenancy lands detailed under Schedule 1 of the plaint as also for a permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiff was that the lands originally belonged to Skh. Wahid Ali, deceased, who was father of Mt. Tetri (defendant No. 1 respondent No. 1). Wahid Ali remained in possession of those lands till his death. After his death, defendant No. 1 along with Shamsuddin and other succeeded to his properties in accordance with their legal shares. On partition between the heirs of Wahid, the suit land along with the other lands were allotted to the share of defendant No. 1 who came in exclusive possession over the same. Subsequently defendant No. 1 verbally sold the suit land to plaintiff No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 100.00 and put him in possession and in proof thereof executed an unregistered sale deed, dated the 14th August, 1947. Since then the plaintiffs were coming in cultivating possession of the lands in suit which being more than 12 years, they had acquired good title and occupancy right over the same. As defendant No. 1, on the instigation of others, was interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, they instituted the suit seeking the declaration as mentioned above.

3. A written statement was filed by defendant No. 1 who contested the suit. Her defence was that she had sold the suit land to Abdul Barkat Khan by a registered sale deed dated the 17th March, 1962, for a consideration of Rs. 500.00 and he being in possession was a necessary party to the suit. Her further case was that she never sold the suit land to the plaintiffs nor she executed any unregistered sale deed dated the 14th August, 1947. She is an illiterate pardanashin lady and if her signature is found on any document, it is forged and fabricated. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land for 12 years or more and they have not acquired any title by adverse possession, Barkat Khan also intervened in the suit and was numbered as defendant No. 2. He also filed a written statement supporting the assertions made by defendant No. 1. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the unregistered sale deed, dated the 14th August, 1947 [Exhibit 2 (a)] rent receipts (Exhibit 1 series), among other documents, were filed and some witnesses were also examined to support their case; whereas on behalf of the defendants the registered sale deed dated the 17th March, 1962 (Exhibit F). in favour of Barkat Khan, along with other documents, was filed and witnesses were also examined.

4. After the consideration of the evidence on record as adduced by both parties, the trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the disputed lands by virtue of an oral sale and the unregistered sale deed [Exhibit 2 (a)] which was inadmissible in evidence, did not confer any title on them. It further found that the plaintiffs were not able to prove that they were in possession of the disputed lands for a continuous period of 12 years or more openly, as of right and to the knowledge of all. Thus, the plaintiffs could not perfect their title over the disputed lands by adverse possession. On the other hand, it found that the defendants had established that defendant No. 1 was in possession over the suit land and she sold the same to defendant No. 2 by virtue of the registered sale deed (Exhibit F) and since the date of the sale, defendant No. 2 was in possession of the disputed lands. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the appellate Court also confirmed those