Possession and ownership are questions of fact, and decisions such as Panchayat resolutions do not confer ownership unless registered as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17-7-2018 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Mungawali, Distt. Ashoknagar, in Civil Appeal No. 20-A/2017, arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 16-1-2017 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class II, Mungawali, Distt. Ashoknagar, in Civil Suit No. 55-A/2013.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the appellant that agricultural land bearing Survey No. 499/4 area 2.023 hectares, situated in village Dongra, Tahsil Mungawali, Distt. Ashoknagar is recorded in the names of the respondents no. 1 and 2, however, they have no right or title in the suit land. In fact, the appellant is the owner and titleholder of the said land and the appellant is in possession of the suit land for the last 40 years, which is open and hostile to the knowledge of the respondents no. 1 and 2. In the year 1980, the respondents no. 1 and 2, started claiming that since, the suit property is recorded in their names, and since, the appellant is in possession of the same, therefore, they would alienate the suit property. Accordingly, a Panchayat was convened and it was agreed, that in case, the appellant pays Rs. 15,000/- to the respondents no. 1 and 2, then the appellant would become the owner of the suit land. Therefore, a Panchnama dated 14-1-1980 was also executed and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to the respondents no. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the respondents no. 1 and 2 left the village Dongra and shifted to village Mafipurachakk and thereafter, went to some other village. It is alleged that from the said date, the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute in the capacity of an owner. On 3-6-2013, when the appellant was cultivating the land, then the respondents no. 1 and 2 came and demanded that the appellant should pay an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- otherwise, they would alienate the suit land. When the appellant apprised the respondents no. 1 and 2 about the decision of the panchayat, then the respondents no. 1 and 2 disowned the same and went away after extending the threat. Thus, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed.

4. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was claimed that the respondents no. 1 and 2 are the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. It was denied that the appellant was ever in possession of the suit property. The panchnama was claimed to be a forged document. It was further pleaded that the respondents no. 1 and 2 had never shifted out of village Dogra. The averment of demand of Rs. 50,000/- and cultivation of land by the plaintiff were denied. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff is in possession for the last 40 years. In additional pleadings, it was pleaded by the respondents no. 1 and 2 that they are in possession of the land in dispute and are regularly making payment of land revenue and the plaintiff/appellant had never been in possession of the suit property.

5. The Trial Court after framing issues, and after recording evidence of both the parties, and hearing them, dismissed the suit.

6. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by impugned Judgment and Decree dated 17-7-2018.

7. Challenging the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had proved the factum of his possession. The appellant is in possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 40 years. Further, the Panchayat had taken a decision, that in case, if the appellant pays Rs. 15,000/- to the respondents no. 1 and 2, then the appellant would become the