IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that unregistered documents affecting immovable property cannot confer rights or be treated as valid sales, reinforcing the necessity of registration for such transactions under the applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Ms. Preete, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the sole plaintiff-respondent and perused the record.

3. The instant second appeal is listed for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

4. One Malkhan Singh executed a registered sale deed dated 22.10.1999 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Kusum Devi. According to the case of the plaintiff-respondent, she was enjoying possession over the said property, however, the defendant-appellant was interfering in her possession and, consequently, Original Suit No. 375 of 2015 was instituted by her claiming a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. She got an order of temporary injunction and, when on a particular date, the injunction order was not extended, taking advantage of the same, the defendant-appellant took forcible possession over the property and, consequently, plaint was amended claiming a decree for possession too. A counter claim was preferred by the defendant-appellant claiming a decree for injunction on the basis of his possession. The trial court decreed the original suit and dismissed the counter claim. Two civil appeals were filed against the said decree, both were consolidated by the appellate court and have been dismissed by a common judgment dated 01.02.2024. Two concurrent decrees, therefore, are under challenge in this appeal. Defendant has not challenged decree of dismissal of his counter claim.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that though title of plaintiff-respondent is admitted to the defendant-appellant at the strength of the sale deed executed by Malkhan Singh, the plaintiff, by entering into a “transaction of sale” with the appellant on 25.06.2001, delivered possession of the property to him in lieu of a sum of Rs.36,500/-. When asked, the learned counsel referred to a matter handwritten on the backside of the registered sale deed, appended at page 20 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. The entire defence in the suit as well as the basis of the counter claim is the said writing itself, whereas the entire claim and defence of the plaintiff is the registered sale deed executed by Malkhan Singh. The matter written on the backside of the sale deed, needs reproduction as under:

^^vkt fnukad 25-6-2001 dks Jhefr dqlqe iRuh txnh'k fuoklh nsohiqj ÁFke ckyfefd uxj ftyk cqyUn'kgj dk IykV tks cSukes ij vafdr gS oks ewY; 36]500@& esa Jh v'kksd dqekj iq= Jh NTtk fuoklh vdcjiqj ij cqyUn'kgj dks cspk x;k ftlds vk/ks 18]250@& gksrs gS tks fd eSaus udn ÁkIr djds cSukek lqiqnZ dj fn;k vkSj fy[kdj rgjhj yxk fn;k tks oDr t:jr dke vk;sA

fuŒvŒ dqlqe iRuh txnh'k

gŒ viŒ

1- xokg & lqjs'k dqfypju

2- xokg & jk/ks';ke iq= jkepUæ flag**

6. Both the courts below have discarded the factum of entering into any agreement or transaction of sale between the parties. In so far as the language handwritten on the backside of the sale deed is concerned, it has been found to be not tenable in the eyes of law for following multiple reasons:

(i) Factum of payment of Rs.36,500/- was not proved.

(ii) Writing does not amount to a sale though it mentions that the property has been sold by the plaintiff Kusum to the defendant Ashok Kumar.

(iii) Two witnesses of the said writing, namely, Suresh Kalicharan and Murari had not been produced as witness.

(iv) Such writing, in absence of a valid registration, cannot confer any right upon the defendant-appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the said writing should have been read as evidence of the very agreement in terms of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The entire Section 49, as applicable in the State of U.P., reads as under:

“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered - No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. 4 of 1882), or of