4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 13.05.2014:- P

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 14 October, 2011, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful ownership and possession of plaintiff, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP.

4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi against defendan ts, as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD.

6. Whether suit is barred by the provision of H.P. Land Revenue Act and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, as alleged? OPD.

7. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction as the land in dispute is situated in Palampur, as alleged?

OPD.

8. Whether defendant has not been served with legal notice as required under Section 80 CPC? OPD.

9. Relief.

5. After evidence, the Trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, issues No.2 and 3 against the plaintiff, gand issues No.4 to 8 against the defendants, thereby partly decreeing the suit. The appellant/defendant No.3, aggrieved by this judgment and decree, preferred the first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in deciding issue No.1 in the plaintiff's favour, arguing that the sale was incomplete as full consideration was not paid and possession was not delivered, thus no title passed. It was submitted that the civil court at Dharamshala lacked jurisdiction as the land was situated in Tehsil Palampur and the matter was pending before the revenue authorities under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The appellant emphasized the existence of agreement Ext.DW2/B, which stipulated a higher consideration, and asserted that the plaintiff's admission of only symPbolic possession indicated a dispute rendering the sale imperfect. It was argued that the plaintiff's prayer for possession itself negated the claim of delivered possession, and that the defendant No.3 was entitled to recover the balance sale consideration. The appellant prayed for the suit's dismissal.

6. The first appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal. It is against this dismissal of the first appeal that the present second appeal has been filed.

7. Heard Counsels for the appellants, perused the impugned judgements.

8. The plaintiff's foundational claim rests on the registered sale deed dated 14.10.2011 (Exhibit PW2/A). The testimony of gthe plaintiff as PW1, the registration clerk as PW3, and the scribe as PW4 consistently establishes the due execution and registration of this document before the Sub-Registrar. Crucially, the defendant No.3, appearing as DW2, has unequivocally admitted in his cross-examination that he executed the sale deed, that his signatures are present on the document and the registration endorsement, and that he received a sum of ₹6,55,000/- at the time of registration. This admission is fatal to his defence. A registered sale deed, unless proven to be void or voidable in accordance with law, is a document of paramount importance that confers a valid title upon the transferee. The defendant No.3 has not taken any steps to challenge this sale deed before a competent couPrt on grounds such as fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Consequently, the plaintiff's ownership derived from Exhibit PW2/A stands established.

9. The defence principally relied upon by defendant No.3 is an alleged agreement (Exhibit DW2/B) stipulating a total consideration of ₹50,15,625/-. It is claimed that the sale deed was undervalued to avoid stamp duty and that the full consideration was never paid. However, the legal position is clear that an antecedent agreement does not supersede or nullify a subsequent completed conve