IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.350 of 1994 1. Gita Singh 2. Sahdeo Singh 3. Makhan Singh All sons of late Harangi Singh 4. Chandramani Singh 5. Ramashish Singh alias Rajmani Singh 6. Sita Ram Singh All sons of late Ganur Singh 7. Mukesh Singh 8. Rajesh Singh alias Tunnu Singh Both sons of late Naresh Singh All residents of village and P.O. Rampur, P.S. Surajgarha, District Munger. ….Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. Ramji Singh 2. Bajrangi Singh Both sons of late Giro Singh 3. Mangal Singh, son of Bhagwat Singh All residents of village and P.O. Rampur, P.S. Surajgarha, District Munger. ….Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Gopal Jee, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Devendra Prasad Sharma and Satyendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates. ------- 07/ 01.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.71 of 1989, which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land measuring 6 decimals of plot no.1148, appertaining to khata no. 987 of Mauza Rampur in the district of Munger fully described in the schedule of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. - 2 - 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Lakhisarai vide his judgment and decree dated 24.09.1993. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1993, which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 09.06.1994. 5. From the arguments on behalf of the parties as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that the plaintiffs claimed their title and possession over the suit land on the basis of their sale-deeds of 1963 (Exts. 7 series), supported by Khatian (Ext.10) and compromise petition (Ext.5), whereas, the defendants claimed on the basis of an unregistered sale-deed dated 25.10.1933 (Ext. A), said to have been executed by Ramrup Paswan in favour of the father of defendants no. 1 to 3. 6. The learned courts below specifically found that the sale of immovable property by a document, which is unregistered, is not admissible in evidence in a court of law and on that basis the title of the alleged vendee of the said deed cannot be confirmed specially in view of section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act as well as section 17 of the Registration Act. It was also found by the learned courts below that the said unregistered sale-deed (Ext. A) was although claimed to be of 1933 but in the year 1965 the expert had reported (Exts. 3 and 4) that Ext. A was not an old document, rather it - 3 - was only six or seven years old on the date of the report. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that Ext. A was not only illegal and void, rather production of such a forged document was clearly found to be an act of fraud. 7. So far question of plaintiffs’ title is concerned, the learned courts below specifically found that the land in question was purchased by the plaintiffs by a registered document in accordance with law and there was a compromise (Ext.5) between the persons concerned and the learned Executive Magistrate after applying his mind accepted the compromise petition and passed an order of compromise (Ext. C). The said compromise was under the scrutiny of not only the learned Magistrate but also the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court and both of them had found the compromise petition to be legal and valid and fully supported the claim of the plaintiffs. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )