Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - Plaintiff-respondents filed instant suit for possession of the plot in dispute through their attorney Bachitar Singh, on the averments that plaintiffs along with defendants No.2 and 3 (now respondents No.8 and 9) are the owners of the suit property and defendant No.1 i.e. appellant had taken illegal possession of the same a few months back in the absence of the plaintiffs and has raised some construction thereon. Hence the necessity arose to file the suit.

2. Appellant contested the suit by filing written statement stating that the suit property in question was originally owned and possessed by Tarlochan Singh and the same is reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1998-99 and after his death, plaintiffs No.6 and 7 (now respondents No.6 and 7) have sold the property in question to him, vide agreement to sell dated 24.09.2003 on payment of full and final consideration of ‘ 12,000/- and had delivered the possession to him and appellant further averred that property was in the shape of a pond and has raised a construction in the year 2003. Since then, the plaintiffs have not raised any objection to the same and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

3. Parties led evidence in support of their respective case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2012 observing as under:-

“15. From the above discussed evidence it is evident that defendant No.1 is alleging one agreement to sell dated 24.09.2003 Ex.DW1/1 in his favour and is claiming himself to be owner of the property in dispute on the basis of said agreement to sell. On the other hand, the plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of title as they are recorded as owners in possession of the suit property in the revenue record, i.e. Copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 Ex.PX. It is evident that the plaintiffs are recorded as owners in possession of the property in dispute in the revenue record and on the other hand, defendant is alleging himself to be the owner of the property in dispute on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell allegedly executed by plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 in his favour. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming the possession of the property in dispute because plaintiff No.6 and 7 are the legal heirs of Tarlochan Singh who was recorded as owner in possession of the property in dispute at the time of its purchase in the revenue record. They had themselves sold the same to defendant No.1. In support of his contentions he had placed reliance upon 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 41 (P&H)(Supra) in which it has been held that where a vendor had sold the property and had received the entire consideration and possession has also been delivered to the vendee. However, the sale deed was not registered. Unregistered sale deed does not confer the title, but vendor estopped from re-claiming possession on the ground that there was no valid sale deed. Rule of estoppel contained in Section 115 of the Evidence Act is clearly attracted. But the above cited law is of no help to defendant No.1 because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Recent Case Reported as Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Haryana and others, [2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 355 : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 321 (SC)] : 2011(4) RCR(Civil) 669(Supra) has held that no immovable property can be legally transferred or conveyed through a general power of attorney, agreement to sell or Will. Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of sales through general power of attorney, agreement to sell or Will neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be considered as deed of title, except to the limited extent