The court emphasized that mutation does not confer any title, and ownership must be proven through a registered sale deed or evidence of sale consideration.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - This regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1978 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Zira and against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur.

2. Dogar Singh, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of land measuring 24 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Fatehgarh Panjtoor. He alleged that he was the owner of he suit land and that he had given the land in dispute for cultivation to his relative Balkar Singh. The power of attorney was also issued by the respondent in favour of Balkar Singh with regard to the management of land. The plaintiff has further alleged that relations between him and Balkar Singh became strained and when he asked Balkar Singh to deliver back the possession of the land, then Harnam Singh and Balkar Singh set up a claim regarding ownership of the land on the basis of a sale-deed. The appellant-defendants alleged that they had purchased the suit land through a registered sale-deed on 17.3.1969 which was duly registered at Zira on 18.3.1969. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land ? OP.

2. Whether the defendants have purchased the disputed land from the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 17.3.1969 for consideration ?

3. Relief.

3. It was alleged by the defendant-appellants that they had purchased the suit land through a registered sale deed from the plaintiff-respondent. However, no copy of the sale-deed was ever produced before the trial Court. They also did not state whether the sale-deed was in their possession or whether they had lost the same. They also did not file any application for leading secondary evidence. The appellants mainly relied on the mutation sanctioned in their favour. It is an established proposition of law that mutation does not confer any title. Apart from this, a mutation is stated to have been sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed, about which nothing had been produced in the trial Court. In order to prove that the appellants had purchased the suit land from the plaintiff-respondent, it was mandatory for them to have produced the original sale deed in evidence and in case, the original had been lost, then secondary evidence should have been forthcoming. In the absence of proving the same the appellants cannot be held to be the owners of the land in dispute.

4. However, before the first appellate Court an application was filed that the original sale deed has been traced and the same may be allowed to be taken on the file by way of additional evidence. The original sale deed was, therefore, admitted in evidence. The onus of proving the consideration for sale was on the appellants. However, the sale consideration in the present case was not proved. According to the defendant-appellants, Rs. 6, 000/- were paid as earnest money and another sum of Rs. 5, 000/- was deducted on account of mortgage amount since, the land was already mortgaged with them. However, no evidence has been led to show that the land was ever mortgaged either with Harnam Singh or with Balkar Singh. In fact, a perusal of the jama bandi and khasra girdawaris show Dogar Singh to be recorded as owner of the land without any encumbrance and the land is shown to be in self-cultivation. Thus, the story put forward by the appellants that the land had been mortgaged with them and that they had duly paid the sale consideration for the purchase of the land is absolutely false.

5. Apart from the above, the defendant-appellants had sought permission of the Court to compare the signatures/thumb impression of Dogar Singh with that of the thumb impressions on the sale deed. The permission was granted. However, despite the Court granting permission for comparison of the thumb impression, no effort was made by the appellants to compare the thumb impression through an expert. This fact also clearly shows that appellant- respondents n