Unregistered sale deeds require evidence of possession transfer to establish title; without such evidence, the claim of ownership is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. These Appellant, in filing this Appeal under section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short ‘the Code’), assails the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2018 & 13.02.2018 respectively passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Rourkela in RFA No. 26 of 2016.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the unsuccessful Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.27 of 2015 of the learned Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela under section-96 of the Code has been allowed. The Trial Court having dismissed the suit filed by the Respondents (Plaintiffs), the First Appellate Court has decreed the suit declaring that the Plaintiffs have the right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and confirmed their possession in further holding that the registered sale-deed dated 13.10.2009 is not binding on the Respondents (Plaintiffs); and therefore the Appellant (Defendant No.2) has been injuncted from entering upon the suit land.

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 Suit.

3. Plaintiffs case is that the suit land belongs to Jaga Puran. He had sold away the suit land to the grandfather of the Plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.95/- on 13.05.1949 by a unregistered sale-deed prepared by one Soma Oram on the request of said Jaga Puran. It is stated that after the death of Jaga Puran, the grandfather of the Plaintiffs performed his obsequies and possessed the suit land till his death and after his death, the father of the Plaintiffs possessed the same and went on paying the rent. The father of the Plaintiffs during then had attempted to record the suit land in his name in the current settlement but as the unregistered document dated 13.05.1949 could not be traced out and produced before the Settlement Authority, the suit land stood recorded in the name of Jaga Puran with a note of forcible possession in the name of the grandfather of the Plaintiffs. It is further stated that in the year, 2002, one Sambhu Bhumij encroached a portion of the land for which the Plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No.37 of 2002 where a compromise was entered into and the suit stood decreed declaring the right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. It is further stated that some time in the month of July, 2014, the Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No. 1 has sold away the suit land in favour of the Defendant No.2 vide registered sale-deed dated 13.10.2009. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant No.1 has no relation with the original owner Jaga Puran and he has not inherited property from him. The sale-deed executed by him thus is said to be fraudulent one and it is stated that the Defendant No.2 has not derived any right, title and interest over the suit land. The Plaintiffs claim is that w.e.f. 13.05.1949, the suit land has been under the possession of their ancestors and they have never been dispossess by anybody.

The Defendant did not file any written statement.

4. The Trial Court on going through the evidence of the Plaintiff No.1 (P.W.1) as well as the documents admitted in evidence and marked Exts. 1 to 10 on behalf of the Plaintiffs came to a conclusion that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their case as laid in the plaint and as such are not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The suit was therefore stood dismissed.

The Plaintiffs thus being non-suited carried the First appeal. The First Appellate Court after hearing and on going through the evidence on record has set aside the order of dismissal of the suit passed by t