The evidentiary value of an unregistered sale agreement under the Registration Act, 1908, and the principles for using unregistered documents as evidence for collateral purposes.

JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Defendant is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgments and decrees concurrently passed by the Courts below, has filed the instant appeal.

2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction with consequential relief of possession by way of mandatory injunction, on the allegation that he alongwith other co-sharers is the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.10 min, Khatauni No.12, Khasra No.169 measuring 0K-10M as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03, situate in Mahal Daruhan Brahmana, Mouza Mehalta, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. as non-occupancy tenant by virtue of exchange with Khasra No.289 as described in column of rent. It was averred that the defendant, even though has no concern with the suit land and was unnecessarily and forcibly interfering in such possession, therefore, be restrained by a decree of prohibitory injunction and in case the defendant succeeds in taking forcible possession of the suit land, then a decree of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein preliminary objections qua cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppel etc. were raised. On merits, it was asserted that the suit land has been sold to the husband defendant vide agreement dated 09.07.2002, for consideration of Rs.20,000/- and even the possession of the same had been handed over on the same day. The sale deed could not be made, as the vendor was recorded as non-occupancy tenant and accordingly dismissal of the suit was sought for.

5. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 03.08.2010, framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the suit land, destroying the crops etc. as alleged? OPP

2. In alternative, if during the pendency of the suit defendant succeeds in taking forcibly possession of the suit land then whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of vacant possession as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff vide agreement dated 9.07.2002 has sold the suit land to the husband of defendant for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- and delivered the possession as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit in view of the compromise dated 6.09.2009 in the Panchayat as alleged? OPD

6. Relief."

6. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and appeal preferred against the same was dismissed, constraining the defendant to file the instant appeal. The defendant had also filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court.

7. It is vehemently argued by Shri Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures without there being any legal application of mind and, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside. Whereas, on the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the findings being in consonance with law, warrant no interference.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments passed by the learned Courts below.

9. Adverting to the oral evidence, led by the parties, it was noticed that the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, who stated on oath that he is owner in possession of the land and cowshed and had also planted vegetables on the suit land. In the month of September of the previous year, defendant had uprooted the boundary and destroyed his vegetables grown on the suit land. Defendant had also abused him and he reported the matter to the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to which, officials of the Gram Panchayat, visited