An unregistered gift deed does not confer title to real property, necessitating proper registration and the inclusion of all necessary parties in a suit for declaration.

1. The instant appeal, preferred by the plaintiff, under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 5-2-2011 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 19 - A / 2009, whereby the suit, filed by the plaintiff / appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts, as projected by the plaintiff / appellant, are that Manohar, son of Mangat Suryavanshi was owner of a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 259/3, are 0.50 acre (0.202 hectare), situated at Village Mangla, P. H. No. 21, R. I. Circle Bilaspur (henceforth 'the suit land'), which was subsequently purchased by Smt. Jotkunwar, widow of Nandram Satnami, resident of Sakri through a registered sale - deed dated 21-3-1975 and as such she became owner of the suit land and came into possession thereof. During her lifetime, she gifted the suit land to Smt. Yashoda Bai, W/o Dhanaram Satnami through a gift - deed dated 3-2-1989. Since the suit land was received vide the gift - deed, Smt. Yashoda Bai could not get her name recorded in the revenue records and after her death, her legal heirs, namely, Ganesh and Dinesh inherited the suit land and later on, they executed agreement dated 8-6-2004 in favour of Kadaram, S/o Ramkhilawan Jangde. Kadaram was grandson of the original owner Smt. Jotkunwar. As such, the suit land got mutated in the name of Kadaram. Kadaram sold out the suit land to the appellant / plaintiff through registered sale - deed dated 15-9-2004 and handed over him ownership and possession thereof. By virtue of the sale - deed, the appellant / plaintiff became owner of the suit land. On his making an application for mutation in the revenue records, an objection was raised by brothers of Kadaram, namely, Vikram and defendant No.1 Devprasad. The objection was allowed and the suit land was mutated in the name of Vikram, defendant No. 1 Devprasad and Kadaram. Subsequently, on getting their shares out of the consideration of the sale, Vikram and defendant No.1 Devprasad executed consent - deeds dated 28-10-2004 and 22-1-2008, respectively, in favour of the appellant / plaintiff and as such the appellant / plaintiff became owner of the suit land and came in possession thereof from the date of its sale. Since, the suit land was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 Devprasad along with two others and he, even after executing consent - deed dated 22-1-2008 in favour of the appellant / plaintiff, was trying to sell out the suit land, therefore, the appellant / plaintiff preferred the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land.

3. In his written statement, defendant No.1 Devprasad stated that he was owner of the suit land and was in possession thereof. He had inherited the suit land from his grandmother Smt. Jotkunwar. His ancestors were cultivating the suit land and earning livelihood there from for the last 30-40 years. After their death, he was cultivating the suit land for the last 20-25 years. The suit land was purchased by Nandram, husband of Smt. Jotkunwar from his agricultural income in the name of Smt. Jotkunwar from Manohar, son of Mangat Suryavanshi. Therefore, Smt. Jotkunwar did not have right to gift the suit land. After death of Smt. Jotkunwar, her legal heirs were entitled to inherit the suit land. Smt. Jotkunwar did not have right to execute gift - deed of the suit land in favour of her daughter Yashoda Bai only. There were two sons of Smt. Jotkunwar, namely, Mohitram and Ramkhilawan. After death of Mohitram, his son defendant No. 1 Devprasad and widow Kainabai and after death of Ramkhilawan, his sons Kadaram, Bhagbali and Vikram and daughters Kanchan, Sulochan