An unregistered sale deed cannot confer title to immovable property unless there is proof of oral sale and delivery of possession.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the plaintiffs who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost before the first appellate Court, was, by order dated 2-3-79, as amended by order dated 29-6-92, was admitted for final hearing on the substantial questions of law set out below :- (1) Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error in law in dismissing the suit for declaration of plaintiffs' title over the suit land on the ground that the document Ex. P/1 was not registered ? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Court erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs ?

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs are sons of Badruddin who died some time in the year 1924. They claim that their father Badruddin, on 28-2-20 vide sale-deed Ex. P/1 purchased from one Anver Sheikh Mohammad an open land for a consideration of Rs. 25/- as described in para 1 of the plaintiff, situated at Khargone. The sale-deed is in 'urdu' and its 'hindi' translation is Ex. O/1a. After the death of their father, they become the owners of the land in question. The plaintiffs applied to Nagar Palika Khargone for permission to construct a building on the land, but Nagar Palika declined to grant permission denying that plaintiffs Title over the land as also urging that the title vested in Nagar Palika. The plaintiffs therefore, after serving requisite notice, filed a suit for declaration of their title over the land as also for declaration that they are entitled to construct building on the same.

( 3 ) NAGAR Paika resisted the suit denying that the plaintiff's father had purchased the land. The identity of the land was also denied. The plaintiff's right of permission to construct building over the land was also denied. It urged for dismissal of the suit.

( 4 ) THE trial Court, by judgement and decree dated 3-3-76, found in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the claim with costs.

( 5 ) IN appeal by defendant-Nagar-Palika, the first appellate Court, by judgement and decree dated 24-8-78 found in favour of defendant-Nagar Palika and allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that their father had purchased the land or that they are owners of the same. Document of sale Ex. P/1 could not be taken into consideration for the collateral purposes of proving delivery of possession to the plaintiff's father. It allowed the appeal with costs and dismissed the suit, hence the present appeal.

( 6 ) AT the hearing of the appeal, substantial questions of law formulated vide order dt. 12-3-79 were recast and substituted by question No. 1 reproduced above. The two learned counsel - Shri D. M. Shah for the appellants and shri Chafekar for the respondent agreed with the question recast.

( 7 ) IT may also be stated that Shri Shah representing the appellants after arguments had been heard and at the stage of reply made an oral request that on mere question as to applicability of Transfer of Property Act 1882 (for short 'the Act') at the relevant time to the area in question may be formulated. The request was rejected because, besides there being no such pleadings relevant to the question, the oral request made 13 years after admission of appeal, was considered belated.

( 8 ) SHRI Shah learned counsel argued that the first appellate Court ought to have taken into consideration that portion of Ex. P/1 which recites placing plaintiffs father in possession of the land in question and it ought to have been held that there was delivery of property to plaintiff's father and sale of the land in question within the meaning of S. 54 of the Act was complete in favour of the plaintiffs' father. He argued that there was no legal bar in reading Ex. P/1 for collateral purposes of proving delivery of possession in favour of plaintiff's father. He also submitted that the document was nearly 70 years old and conscience of the Court should be satisfied that there was valid sale in respect of the land in question in favour of plaintiff's father. He also r