The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered sale deed for property valued at more than ? 100 is inadmissible and does not confer title, as it fails to comply with the compulsory registration requirement under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law: -

''Whether the respondent does not acquire any title over the property on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 20-3-68 which requires compulsory registration?''

(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. The suit property was originally held by one Suddhuram Yadav - father of the plaintiffs who is said to have purchased the suit property vide registered sale deeds dated 21-7-1953 (Ex.P-1) and 25-6-1957 (Ex.P-2). It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs father - Suddhuram Yadav had a widowed sister namely Subha Bai and on account of her poor financial condition, the plaintiffs gave a part of the suit property with one room for stay to their fathers sister and her son Ramgopal - original defendant, but when the plaintiffs asked the original defendant to vacate the suit premises due to addition in their family, the original defendant refused and started assaulting the plaintiffs and started illegally occupying over the other part of the suit property which compelled the plaintiffs to send legal notice dated 9- 7-1996 to the defendant and to file suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and damages in which original defendant Ramgopal setup a plea that an unregistered sale deed dated 20-3- 1968 has been executed by Suddhuram Yadav in his favour for a sale consideration of ? 200/-, as such, the plaintiffs suit deserves to be dismissed.

3. The trial Court after evaluating oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the suit holding that the defendant has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, as the defendant is in possession of the suit land and in possession of the unregistered sale deed since 20-3-1968. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs also suffered the same fate, but partly modified and it was held that the plea of the defendant is permissive and the unregistered sale deed dated 20-3-1968 is a thirty years old document, therefore, by virtue of Section 90 of the Evidence Act , presumption would be available to the defendant that it is executed validly.

4. Challenging the judgment & decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC in which substantial question of law has been formulated which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein/plaintiffs, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in ignoring Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which clearly provides that in order to transfer title, if it is more than ? 100/-, it must be registered and presumption would be available under Section 90 of the Evidence Act only with regard to the extent of authenticity of any handwriting contained in or execution or attestation of a document, but there is no presumption of registration under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, as such, the judgments & decrees of both the Courts below deserve to be set-aside and the suit deserves to be decreed in toto.

6. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein/legal representatives of the original defendant, while vehemently opposing the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiffs, would submit that though the agreement to sale dated 20- 3-1968 is unregistered, yet the defendant tried to get it registered, but it was not registered, therefore, it could not be formally registered, but the fact remains that the defendant is in possession since the date of sale deed dated 20-3-1968 (Ex.D-12) and presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is rightly held to be available to the defendant with respect to Ex.D-12. Therefore, both the Courts below are just