An unregistered sale deed requires formal proof to establish title, especially when contested by a registered deed.

ORDER

The second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 10/4/2008 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge Datia in RCA No.8A/2007 as well as judgement and decree dated 30/11/2006 passed by Second Civil Judge Class II, Datia in Civil Suit No.109A/2005.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the courts below.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that khasra number 15, 16, 49, 50 and 54, as mentioned in the schedule A to the plaint situated in village Thakurpura, tehsil and district Datia is the disputed property. It is the case of the plaintiff that Latkari widow of Chature who was the resident of village Thakurpura, tehsil and district Datia was the owner of the property who has already expired. By an unregistered sale deed dated 1/2/1946, Latkari alienated the property to Sukhlal who is the father of the plaintiff for a consideration amount of Rs 64/- and the father of the plaintiff namely Sukhlal became the owner of the said property. Sukhlal has expired and accordingly it was claimed that plaintiff is the sole legal representative of Sukhlal and has acquired the title by way of inheritance. It was pleaded that the defendant No.1 - Gajju, who expired during the pendency of the suit, somehow got his name mutated in the revenue record and after his death, his sons defendants No.2 to 6 have also got their names mutated in the revenue records in a clandestine manner. It was pleaded that Latkari was the owner of the property in dispute, therefore the defendants No.1 to 6 have no right or title to get their names mutated in the revenue records. Accordingly, it was pleaded that that mutation of the property in the name of defendants No.1 to 6 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It was pleaded that the cause of action arose on 18/1/1996 when the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the revenue records.

4. The defendants No. 1 to 6 filed their written statement and claimed that the details of the property which has been given in the plaint are vague. It was claimed that in the year 1948-49, Latkari had 1/3 share in khasra No. 15, 16, 49, 50 and 54. The factum of death of Latkari was also not disputed. It was denied that Ladai alias Latkari had alienated her share to Sukhlal father of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the aforesaid sale deed is a forged document and has been prepared after the death of Latkari. It was claimed that in fact Latkari had executed a sale deed in respect of her share in favor of Betal who was the father of defendant No.1 Gajju by a registered sale deed dated 1/2/1949 and possession of the land was also given to Betal. Thus it was pleaded that in view of the registered sale deed dated 1/2/1949, Betal became the owner and in possession of the property in dispute.

5. Thus in nutshell, it was the case of the plaintiff that Latkari had executed an unregistered sale deed dated 1/2/1946 in favor of Sukhlal who is the father of plaintiff, whereas it is the case of the defendants that Latkari had executed a registered sale deed dated 1/2/1949 in favor of Betal who was the father of defendant No.1- Gajju.

6. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence dismissed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved by judgement and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the appellate court.

8. Challenging the judgements and decrees passed by the courts below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that all the attesting witnesses who had signed the unregist