The requirement of a registered deed for the transfer of immovable property is essential to establish ownership.

1. - This is second appeal under section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2002 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2000 by which learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division (sic Division) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

2. Brief facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit on 3.4.1992 with the averments that the disputed plot mentioned in para 6 of the plaint was allotted to him by Maharaja of Jaipur on 13.5.1967 and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the same as owner and he constructed a boundary wall and one tin-shed and established a 'Akhara'. It was next pleaded that the defendant- respondent-Municipal Corporation, Jaipur wants to dispossess him from the disputed plot. It was also stated that during the time of curfew, the allotment letter was lost and thereafter Maharani of Jaipur issued a certificate to hint on 4.3.1990.

3. The defendant did not appear after service of the summons. The learned Civil Judge after recording the evidence of the plaintiff dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 13.10.2000 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership. First appeal filed against that judgment was also dismissed on 26.8.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that since the defendant-respondent did not file any written statement, the claim of the plaintiff should have been deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff was in possession since 1967. Reliance is placed upon Kishan Chand v. Banwarilal, WLC (Raj.) 2000 (3) 164 ; Union India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Musmat Kheti, WLC (Raj.) UC 1997 447 ; Juggi Lal Kamla Pat v. Ram Janki Gupta & Anr., AIR 1962 Allahabad 407 (V 49 C 100) ; Sachhiddanand Sharma v. Jaipur Development Authority, WLC (Raj.) 1992 (2) 542 ; Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Anr., AIR 1962 Allahabad 439 (V 49 C 109) and Gyan Chand Jain v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 46/77) decided by High Court of Rajasthan on 9.10.1987.

5. I have considered the above submissions. Both the Courts below have arrived at concurrent findings of facts that immovable property of rupees more than 100/- can be transferred only by way of registered deed and no such deed has been filed and the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership on the disputed land. The concurrent findings are based on evidence available on the record and the same cannot be said to be perverse. Only on the ground that defendant-respondent did not file any written statement, no implied admission can be drawn. These judgments relied upon also do not extend any help to the appellant and there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. Consequently, this second appeal along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage.Appeal dismissed.

*******