The legal significance of registered documents under the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, and the inability of an unregistered deed to confer a valid title.

JUDGMENT :

The brief controversy as it emanates for consideration before this second appellate in the present second appeal, is arising out of the concurrent judgments which had been rendered by both the courts below on 29.04.2019, it was while dismissing the appeal of plaintiff/appellant herein being Civil Appeal No.160 of 2016 Brahamdatt vs. Neelam Malik; as well as the judgment of the learned trial court dated 25.10.2019 rendered in Suit No.454 of 2008 Brahamdatt vs. Neelam Malik, which too stood dismissed in which the plaintiff/appellant herein had put a challenge to the registered sale deed which was executed in favour of the defendants by the registered owner of the property described in it i.e. by Ishwar Chand on 17.06.2008. The plaintiff/appellant herein on 08.08.2008 had instituted a suit before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Rishikesh, District Dehradun, Brahamdatt vs. Neelam Malik, wherein he has sought a degree for declaration of the sale date as executed in favour of the defendants on 17.06.2008 in relation to the property more appropriately described at the foot of the plaint constituting a property bearing Municipal No.7 and 8 lying on the ground floor constituting of six rooms, toilet, bathroom, kitchen, as well as the construction which existed on the first floor constituting of one room, toilet as well as open area of 55 x 28 feet, the prescient of which were described at the foot of the plaint. The details of the property, which was the subject matter of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant on 17.06.2008 is given hereunder:-

^^% % fooj.k fookfnr lEifRr la[;k&2 % % &

lkses'oj uxj] Fkkuk&iksLV o rglhy _f"kds’k ftyk& nsgjknwu mRrjk[k.M esa fLFkr lEifRr la[;k&07 o 08 ftlesa Hkwry ij 6 dejs] ySVªhu ckFk:e o jlksbZ rFkk izFke ry ij ,d dejk o ySVªhu 'kkfey gS tks 55 QqV x 28 QqV oxZ {ks=Qy esa fLFkr gS ftldh lhek;sa fuEu izdkj gSa%&

2. In the suit in question the nature of the decree, which was formulated, to be procured from the court was to the effect that the sale deed under question therein may be declared, as to be a fraudulent document, which has been obtained by hatching a conspiracy against the plaintiff/appellant, on the ground that in relation to the same set of property, there already existed an unregistered prior transfer deed of 28.01.2005, which is said to have been executed on Rs.100 stamp paper, which admittedly and even as per evidence on record was an unregistered document alleged to be executed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant, under the strength of which they claimed themselves to hold the title over the property in question. The suit thus instituted for the aforesaid relief, there was an amendment carried and by virtue of an amendment, a degree of permanent injunction was also sought as against the defendant for creating a restraint against them from forceful interference over the property, which was said to be the subject matter of sale deed of 17.06.2008, which had exchanged hand between Late Mr. Ishwar Chand and the defendants on the exchange of sale consideration as given therein in the sale deed to the tune of Rs.4,34,000/-.

3. The suit was contested by defendant no.1 by filing the written statement apart from denying the plaint averments, the defendants have contended, that they are the bona-fide purchaser under the register document which was executed in their favour by the recorded owner of the property, which stood registered before the Sub Registrar and hence their rights stood crystallized by the execution of the registered sale deed and any claim, which has been raised by the plaintiff/appellant to the contrary under the strength of unregistered agreement for sale would be barred by the provisions contain