Validation of property title claims must adhere to registered transaction statutes, rendering unregistered rectification deeds invalid.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

9 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s).

2. These two Second Appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 04 of 2014, which was decreed partly. Against the judgment of Title Suit No. 04 of 2014, two appeals were filed; one by the plaintiff-appellant vide Title Appeal No. 07 of 2016 and another by the defendant-appellant vide Title Appeal No. 05 of 2016.

Both the appeals were heard separately and Title Appeal No. 07 of 2016 filed by the plaintiff-appellant was allowed while Title Appeal No. 05 of 2016 filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed. Against both the judgments and decrees, these two second appeals have been filed separately against respective judgment and decree.

3. The defendant is the appellant in both the instant Second Appeals. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit bearing Title Suit No. 04 of 2014 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the Schedule B land along with mesne profits from the date of dispossession till recovery of possession of the suit land.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff had purchased the land described in Schedule A of the plaint through a registered sale deed dated 06.09.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 55,000/- from one Arjun Yadav. It is further pleaded that Schedule A consists of 3 plots of land i.e. (i) Khata No. 28, Plot No. 73, Area 6 katha 3 dhur and 3 dhurki; (ii) Khata No. 70, Plot No. 74, Area 4 katha 10 dhur and (iii) Khata No.

42, Plot No. 285 Area, 1 katha 16 dhur and 15 dhurki. 5. It is further pleaded that after purchase, the vendor had put the plaintiff in possession of the Schedule A land on the date of purchase, and subsequently, the plaintiff got his name mutated in the revenue records, and after mutation Jamabandi No. 86 of total purchased land measuring 12 katha 9 dhur 18 dhurki was created. After payment of rent, rent receipts have been issued in favour of the plaintiff by the authorities concerned. It is further pleaded that land, in dispute, is mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint bearing Khata No. 42 Plot No. 285 measuring an area 1 katha 16 dhur and 15 dhurki which is part of the Schedule A land and was purchased through the same deed dated 06.09.2006.

6. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant, with the help of anti-social elements, tried and threatened to evict the plaintiff from the suit land on 08.02.2014 and 10.02.2014. The plaintiff was forcibly evicted from the suit land mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint by making illegal construction of thatched hut over the suit land. The defendant has no valid title with respect to the suit land and the defendant was not in possession of the suit land prior to the forceful eviction of the plaintiff. The local people of the area told the defendant to vacate the suit land but, the defendant refused to vacate the suit land.

7. The defendant has filed his written statement and vehemently denied the assertions of the plaintiff. It has been asserted that Arjun Yadav, who happens to be the vendor of the plaintiff, is necessary party of the instant suit. In the absence of necessary party, the present suit would not proceed.

8. The further case of the defendant is that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Arjun Yadav through a sale deed. The said Arjun Yadav sold the land of Khata No. 22, Plot No. 63 and Khata No. 70, Plot No. 74 to the plaintiff. The land of Khata No. 142, Plot No. 285 has not been sold to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff had purchased the land of Khata No. 142, Plot No. 285, then the sale deed would be forged and without consideration.

9. It is further alleged that the plaintiff never came in possession of the suit land. The defendant purchased the land on 22.02.2011 from Arjun Yadav for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-, which was registered on 14.03.2011, the defendant