1. Plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of possession of two-storeyed building bearing municipal No. 226/1-1, situated at Katra Ghanayan, Amritsar, and for recovery of Rs. 8600/ - as rent and / or mesne profits of the building w.e.f. 3-11-1971 till the filing of the suit in September 1976.

2. The main facts of the case are that Lal Singh defendant No.12, agreed to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff-appellant on 3rd of October, 1971 vide agreement to sell Exhibit P-3. In pursuance of this agreement, sale deed Exhibit P.1 was executed on 3rd of November, 1971, but the same could not be registered. Consideration was Rs.13,000.00, out of which Rs. 1300.00 were paid at the time of agreement to sell and the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of registration. The document was presented for registration on 2nd of March, 1972, i.e., within four months of its execution, as provided under S.23 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 . The Sub-Registrar refused the registration of the document on 17th of July, 1972, on the ground that the property in dispute had already been sold vide sale deed dated 29/11/1971 (Exhibit DM3/l), in favour of defendants Nos.1 to 11. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before the Registrar, who remanded the case to the Sub-Registrar on 30/04/1973, with certain directions. The Sub-Registrar, again refused registration and the plaintiff-appellant again went in appeal, which was accepted by the Registrar, with directions to the Sub-Registrar to register the sale and the parties were directed to appear before the Sub-Registrar, on 12th of May, 1975, on which date the plaintiff-appellant appeared with the remaining amount of Rs.11,700/ -, for payment to the vendor but the vend or Lal Singh did not appear. The sale deed which was executed on 3rd of November, 1971, in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was ultimately registered on 14th of May, 1975. On the basis of this document, plaintiff-appellant became absolute owner of the property in dispute w.e.f. 3-11-1971, i.e., the date on which the sale deed was executed in his favour. In the sale deed, it was recited that Attar Singh was a tenant on the ground floor of the building and the vendor was to get the lease deed executed from Attar Singh in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Atter Singh was a statutory tenant. He died and the defendants Nos.1 to 11 are stated to be his heirs and legal representatives. The plaintiff had further alleged that after the death of Attar Singh they did not derive any title and right and they are only trespassers in the eye of law and instead of delivering the possession of the shop, they forcibly occupied the first floor of the building and were in unlawful possession of the property in dispute. It was further alleged that defendants Nos.1 to 11 are claiming to have become the owners of the property in dispute by virtue of sale deed, which was executed in their favour by defendant No.12, subsequent to the sale deed which was executed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. It was further alleged that Lal Singh defendant could not sell the property in dispute to the defendants Nos.1 to 11, as he had no right or title in the property in dispute because he had already transferred the same in favour of the plaintiff on 3rd of November, 1971. Since defendants Nos.1 to 11 refused to hand over the possession in spite of repeated requests, the plaintiff was forced to file the present suit for recovery of possession of the property in dispute and for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8600.00 as mesne profits for use and occupation of the property in dispute.

3. The defendants contested the suit and alleged inter alia, that no valid sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by Lal Singh defendant No.12 and that the plaintiff had never become the absolute owner of the property and that the defendants were the bona fide purchasers of the