An unregistered sale deed for immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 does not confer title; possession under it is permissive and cannot ripen into adverse possession without proof of hostile animus and statutory period.

1) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ defendants No. 6 and 7 under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in First Civil Appeal No. 37-A/2002 dated 1.9.2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants No. 6 and 7 was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Ramanujganj in Civil Suit No. 41-A/2000 dated 22.3.2002 were affirmed.

2) This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 23.12.2004 on following substantial questions of law :-

1. Whether the Courts below committed and error of law in holding that the document (Ex. P/1) an unregistered sale-deed confers any title upon plaintiff?

2. Whether the correct test in relation to perfection of title by way of adverse possession has not been applied by the Courts below and the finding is perverse on the face of record ?

3. Whether the lower appellate Court was obliged under the law to make an enquiry in relation to valid service of summons upon defendant No. 6 & 7 in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

3) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants does not want to press substantial question of law no. 3. The prayer is accordingly allowed. This appeal is confined to substantial question of law no. 1 and 2 only.

4) The plaintiffs namely Mohd. Kasim and Mohd. Yasin instituted a civil suit claiming therein relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property described in Schedule-A appended to the plaint inter-alia on the ground that suit property was sold by one Mohd. Rafique, who was the father of defendants No. 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No. 3 through un-registered sale-deed dated 15.4.1964 (Ex. P/1) and possession was handed over to plaintiffs and defendant No. 5, namely, Mohd. Hasim. They pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 3 executed a registered sale-deed of the suit property in favor of defendants No. 6 and 7 namely Ramjanak and Manikchand on 19.9.2000. They further pleaded that sale-deed dated 19.9.2000 does not contain signature of defendant No. 2 and same is forged one. They further pleaded that suit property was sold to them through un-registered sale-deed dated 15.4.1964 in consideration of Rs. 150/- and a sewing machine on stamp paper of 10 paise and since then, the plaintiffs are in possession. Plaintiffs also pleaded that revenue record has already been rectified pursuant to sale-deed dated 15.4.1964 and they have raised construction of a house over it. Plaintiffs took plea of adverse possession making statement that they are in continuous and hostile possession over the suit property since date of purchase and this fact was within the knowledge of defendants No. 1 to 3 and thus they have perfected their right over the suit property. Plaintiffs alleged the subsequent mutation of suit property in favor of defendants No. 1 to 3 and they sought for reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 to 3, 4, 6 and 7.

5) Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. They alleged un-registered sale-deed dated 15.4.1964 and pleaded that sale-deed dated 19.9.2000 was executed pursuant to power-of-attorney given by Shammad Ali. They further pleaded that pursuant to said sale-deed, possession h