IMPORTANT POINT
An unregistered sale deed does not transfer legal title to property, and a claim of adverse possession must be explicitly pleaded to be considered.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment & decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Malkangiri in R.F.A. No.17 of 2014.

The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit (C.S. No.03 of 2014) in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Malkangiri for recovery of possession of the suit land from the hands of the Appellants, who had been arraigned as the Defendants therein with further prayer for permanent injunction.

The suit having been decreed by the Trial Court; these Appellants, as the Defendants, thus having been suffered from the same had carried the Appeal under Section-96 of the Code which has been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of these Appellants, who are under the sufferance of the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff's case is that the suit land stood recorded in the name of Nirapad Bain, who died sometime in the year 200102. The Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of said Naripad Bain and they are his legal heirs and successors. Plaintiff No.2 has been cultivating the suit land in view of the old age of Plaintiff No.1. The Plaintiffs had the right, title, interest as also possession over the suit land after the death of Nirapad. Since on 01.07.2012, the Defendant forcibly occupied a portion of the land under Plot No.924 and constructed a house over there and also forcibly occupied half portion of the land under Plot No.923, the said Plaintiffs have been compelled to file the suit.

4. The Defendants in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments have stated that they had purchased the land measuring Hc.1.227 appertaining to Khata Nos.138, Plot Nos. 923, 924, 277, 1337 & 1414 from that Nirapad Bain by a sale deed dated 25.04.1990 on payment of valuable consideration of Rs.8,000/-. It is further stated that Nirapad having sold the property, said Nirapad had delivered possession to them and as such they are in possession of the suit land by cultivating the same and it has been to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs from the very beginning.

5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings framed as many as five (5) issues. Coming to decide the crucial issue as regards the Plaintiffs claim of right, title and interest over the suit land and the projected case of the Defendants that they have purchased the suit property and acquired the right by virtue of same; upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, the decision has been rendered in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. The Trial Court held that the Defendants have failed to prove that they have legally purchased the suit from Nirapad and as such have the right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Having so held, the Trial Court decreed the suit.

6. The unsuccessful Defendants then carried the Appeal in challenging the findings of the Trial Court leading to the decree in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Frist Appellate Court on independent examination of evidence and their evaluations at its level has found no reason to differ with the findings of the Trial Court. In view of that, the First Appellate Court has accorded the seal of approval to the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Plaintiffs.

7. Mr. G.N. Mishra learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Defendants, having specifically pleaded to have purchased the property in suit by sale deed dated 25.04.1990 for valuable consideration of Rs.8,000/- and pursuant to that had taken the possession of the suit land being so delivered by their vendor, Nirapad Bain, the predecessors-in-interest of the Plaintiffs; t