Ownership requires proper documentation; reliance on unregistered deeds lacks legal standing.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of CPC , has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2024 passed by Second District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) in RCA No.23/2023.

2. The appellants are the defendants who have lost their case from the appellate court.

3. The facts, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of two houses situated in Ward No.5, Aabadi, Bada Bazar, Picchor, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) on the ground that the aforesaid two houses were in ownership and possession of their mother- Smt. Noorobai D/o Chhutto Khan. She died in the year 1998 and from thereafter the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the property in dispute. Their names are also recorded in the records of the Municipal Council. They are regularly making payment of taxes.

4. The appellants/defendants filed their written statement and claimed that the property in dispute was purchased by them from Babbu Khan by sale deed dated 10.01.1989 and accordingly, on the basis of the sale deed their names were also mutated in the revenue records and they are the owner and in possession of the property in dispute.

5. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs/respondents preferred an appeal which has been allowed by Second District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) by judgment and decree dated 13.11.2024 passed in RCA No.23/2023.

6. Challenging the judgment and findings passed by the Appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that the court below failed to see that appellants are the owner and in possession of the disputed houses. They had purchased the aforesaid property by sale deed dated 10.01.1989 and accordingly, proposed the following Substantial Questions of Law:

“a) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned two courts below so far as it relates to findings against the appellants are sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the pleadings of the parties and evidence both oral and documentary available on record?

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN b) Whether the learned lower appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned trial court and decreed the suit failing to consider that no document of title was submitted by the plaintiffs and so also that plaintiff cannot take advantage of defendant's weakness?

c) Whether the suggestion given by plaintiff to Dw-1 in Para 6 and the overall inference drawn from deposition of Pw-1 to Pw-4 destroys the case of plaintiff?

d) Whether both the courts below failed to consider that the document submitted by plaintiff are only for fiscal purpose and cannot give title and so also erred in wrongly discarding Ex.D-5 and so also the sale-

deed Ex.D-26 in favour of the appellants?

e) Whether the findings with regard to possession given by the learned appellate court can be sustained in view of the evidence given by plaintiffs and their witness in proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.D-1, Ex.D-15, Ex.D-16, Ex.D-17) considered by the learned trial court and finding is given that the appellants have not taken forcible possession?

AND/OR Any other substantial question of law, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts & circumstances of the case may kindly be formulated.”

7. Heard learned counsel for appellants.

8. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the appellants are the owner of the property in dispute or not?

9. Mumtaz (DW-2) has stated that the property in dispute was purchased by Safi Khan from Babbu Khan by sale deed dated 10.01.1989 for a consideration amount of Rs.8,000/-. The said sale