IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Requirement of compulsory registration – When document has been executed for transferring land value of which is more than Rs.100/-, then, same is required to be registered – Merely because document is exhibited, does not mean that requirement to prove the same is dispensed with.
(2) Claim for ownership and Adverse Possession are mutually destructive pleas.

JUDGMENT

Virender Singh, J.—Basant Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2003, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No.78 of 1996, titled as Basant Kumar versus Deep Ram & Others.

2. By way of judgment and decree dated 8.12.2003, the appeal, preferred by the Basant Kumar, has been ordered to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court.

3. The said appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1996, passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.105/1 of 1987, titled as Basant Kumar versus Saloh (deceased) through LRs and Others.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.06.1996, learned trial Court has dismissed the suit, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, Basant Kumar.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.

6. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as per record, may be summed up, as under:-

6.1. Plaintiff Basant Kumar has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.149, having 2/3 share, along with defendants No.1 to 23. According to him, he is also owner in possession of Khasra No. 349/362/1, measuring 0-12 Biswa, which is the part of khasra No.149, to which new khasra No. 394/362 was allotted, as per the jamabandi for the year 1980-8l in Ghumarwin Khas.

6.2. In the alternative, it is the further case of the plaintiff that in case, he fails to prove that he is owner in possession vide agreement dated 22.12.1963, then, he is owner in possession of the said khasra number, by virtue of adverse possession, on the basis of defective title and suit for possession of 12 Biswansi of land bearing khasra No.394/362/1, after dismantling the house, which defendants No.1 and 2 constructed on 8.3.1987, forcibly.

6.3. In addition to this, the plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants permanently from interfering in the suit land. The said relief has been sought on the ground that Defendant No.3 Arjun got in exchange Khasra No.149 min, measuring 2 bighas from Mangatu, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.6 to 9 and Bhotha and Makoru, who are defendants No.4 and 5, in the present lis.

6.4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 22.01.1983, Arjun executed a Sale Deed and sold 5 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No. 149min, situated in Village Ghumarwin Bazar, to the plaintiff. Dimension of land was given, in the agreement, as 28 Hath, in length, on the road side. Khakha Nazri was prepared on the site and shown, in the agreement, possession of 5 biswa was handed over to the plaintiff on the site.

6.5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that thereafter, in the year 1964, plaintiff constructed a shop on it, which had duly been recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, one Roop Lal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.10 to 16 purchased land, on northern side, of the suit land. Plaintiff built a small house on the boundary, which was rented out to Roop Lal. The said small house is in between the house of defendants Roop Lal and Onkar.

6.6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that thereafter, the plaintiff had sold 1/3rd share, out of 5 biswa of land to Santokha, who sold the same to proforma defendants No.35 and 36. He has also constructed a shop by leaving 8 Hath from the road side between the shop built by LRs of Rup Lal and proforma defendants, in this land, comprised in khasra No.394/362/1.

6.7. It i