( 1. ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff whose suit for possession of certain agricultural lands has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

( 2. ) THE case of the plaintiff was that the suit lands had been orally sold to him by the defendant in the year 1956 for a consideration of Rs. 350 and possession was also delivered in that year. However, a formal deed of sale was executed on 24th November, 1960 and was registered. According to the allegations made in the plaint, despite oral sale and delivery of possession in the year 1956, the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff in the year 1963. The defendant denied the oral sale and delivery of possession in the year 1956 and also of dispossession in 1963. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was never in possession. It was, however, admitted that on 24-11-60, a sale deed (Ex. P-1)was executed and registered for sale of the agricultural lands for a consideration of Rs. 350. However, soon after the execution and registration of the deed of sale, the parties discovered that the aforesaid transaction was void, being in contravention of the provisions of section 165 sub-section (4) clause (b) of the m. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and as such the amount of consideration was returned to the plaintiff and both the parties treated the sale as cancelled. Thus, according to the defendant, there being no valid sale in favour of the plaintiff, he did not acquire any title.

( 3. ) AS mentioned in para 6 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it was conceded by both the parties that since the suit was instituted in the year 1966 and there was no question of adverse possession or the suit being barred by limitation, the questions, whether the plaintiff was in possession from 1956 to 1963 and whether he was dispossessed by the defendant in the year 1963, were immaterial. Admittedly, the plaintiff was out of possession on the date of the suit and the claim for possession in the present suit, being based on title claimed to have been derived from the defendant in transfer, he could succeed only on establishing valid title to the suit land by virtue of the transfer in his favour. Under these circumstances, before the lower appellate Court, only the following points arose for determination. (1) Whether the plaintiff purchased the lands orally in 1956 for a consideration of Rs. 350 ? (2) Whether the aforesaid sale could confer any title in favour of the plaintiff ? (3) Whether the sale deed dated 24-11-60, the execution and registration of which is not in dispute, was hit by the provisions of section 165 (4) (b) of of the M. P. Land Revenue Code ?

( 4. ) BEFORE this Court also, the aforesaid points were pressed. So far as the finding about the purchase of the suit land orally in the year 1956 is concerned, it is apparent that both the Courts below have concurrently found it in favour of the plaintiff. This finding is based on sufficient evidence. There is a recital in the sale deed dated 24-11-60 also to the effect that the land in question had been already sold about 4 years back for Rs. 350 to the plaintiff. In the absence of any explanation from the defendant, the Courts below were right in concluding that such oral transaction did take place.

( 5. ) SINCE the value of the property was more than Rs 100, it was not disputed that the sale could be effected only by a registered document. As such by the aforesaid oral sale in the year 1956, the plaintiff did not acquire any right of ownership of the suit land.

( 6. ) IN respect of the third contention, the argument was that the execution of the document dated 24-11-60 was in pursuance of the earlier transaction of the year 1956 and as such the same was not hit by the provisions of section 165 (4) (b) of the Code, which came into force on 2-10-1959. According to the appellant, the deed of sale though executed on 24-11-60, will relate back to 1956, in which year there was no such prohibition in the Code of 1954 then i