Effect of non-registration of sale deed of immovable property.

G. Maheswaran, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was one for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiffs and for recovery of Rs. 900/- towards damages. The suit property is called Thathankuttai Aru Pangu Annabishega Pudhuvadai. It is covered by Resurvey No.111/13 in Vishnupuram Village. The plaintiffs claim title to suit property by virtue of certain purchases ranging from 1903 to 1929, According to them, they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that certain sales in their favour were made by registered documents and other sales were by unregistered documents and they are only to confirm the oral sales made by them. The plaintiffs have been paying kist and enjoying the coconut trees planted on the suit property. Though the extent is 20 cents, the road comprised one cent. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are in illegal possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore the plaintiffs have to file the suit for recovery of 19 cents of the suit property.

2. The defendants resisted the suit and stated that the plaintiffs have no title to the property and that in any event the defendants have perfected title by adverse possession.

3. The trial Judge held that the plaintiffs have title to suit property and that the defendants have not prescribed title by adverse possession. He also fixed the past profit at Rs. 250/- per annum. The defendants appealed. In appeal, the learned appellate Judge found joint possession of the plaintiffs along with other owners of about six cents of land and in regard to the remaining 14 cents, he found that the sale deed which are unregistered documents are not admissible in evidence and, in the end, negatived to claim of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. He did not grant any relief with reference to six cents of property as exclusive enjoyment of those six cents had not been proved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.

4. A learned Judge of this Court admitted the second appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law:

Whether the lower appellate Court is right in rejecting Exhibits A-3 to A-10 on the ground of want of registration, especially when they are for consideration less than Rs. 100/-?" ('Exhibits A-3 to A-10' should read as 'Exhibits A-4 to A-10').

5. Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are the two sale deeds, which have been indisputably proved to be sale deeds in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. But, what has been purchased is only an undivided 6 cents under these two documents. The appellate Court clearly found that the plaintiffs' predecessor in interest was in joint possession along with the other owners in respect of the 6 cents of property. As regards the remaining 14 cents, it is stated that Exhibits A-4 to A-10, which are unregistered sale deeds, are inadmissible in evidence, even though the sale consideration under each is below Rs. 100/-. Learned Counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contended that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, there is no need for registration of a sale deed of the value below Rs. 100/-. He also invited my attention to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act runs thus:

Section 54 : "Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised."

"Such transfer in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument."

"In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property."

"Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property."

"A contract for sale of immovable property is a