RSA 172/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 44/2008 allowing the appeal preferred by the present respondents/plaintiffs by s etting aside the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2008 passed by the learned Muns iff No.2, Barpeta, in Title Suit No.14/2007, whereby and whereunder the plaintif fs’ suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, t itle and interest in respect of the land measuring 3 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas in Dag No.559 of K.P. Patta No.149 of village Dabandia, Mouza-Titapani, District-B arpeta, Assam, more fully described in Schedule-D to the plaint contending inter alia that out of the total ancestral land of 14 bighas 1 katha 6 lechas, 3 bigh as of land was sold by their grandfather during his lifetime leaving 11 bighas 1 katha 6 lechas, which has been described in Schedule-B. It has also been conten ded that few other sale transactions were made transferring the title in respect of some more land leaving 3 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas in the said Dag, described in Schedule-D, in respect of which the plaintiffs by right of inheritance acqui red the right, title and interest. The further case of the plaintiffs that the d efendant on 11.12.2002 mutated their names in respect of 2 bighas 3 kathas 15 le chas out of the Schedule-D land, thereby clouding the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiffs vide two sale deeds, one dated 15.10.1992 (Ext.-K a) and the other dated 10.11.1995 (Ext.-Kha), sold 2 bighas 3 kathas 15 lechas o f land, by virtue of which the defendant acquired the right, title and interest over the said land and consequently the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest ha s been extinguished, in respect of the said land. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the follo wing issues for consideration and decision:- 1. Whether there is any cause of action of the suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by the provision of Section 34 of the Specifi c Relief Act? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title, interest over the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in the suit as prayed fo r? 6. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record, bo th oral and documentary, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents by holding that since the plaintiffs have executed the sale deeds (Exts.-Ka and Kh a), their right over 2 bighas 3 kathas 15 lechas has been extinguished and the d efendant has acquired the right, title and interest by virtue of such sale. The learned Trial Court, however, has ignored the fact that Exts.-Ka and Kha were un registered deeds, value of which were more than Rs.100/-. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs/respondents preferred Title Appeal No.44/ 2008, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree by setting asid e the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, by holding that the unregistered deeds of sale, in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property A ct, cannot confer any title on the defendant. Hence the present appeal. I have heard Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that thou gh the unregistered deeds of sale (Exts.-Ka and Kha) do not confer any title on the defendant, his possessory right over the property ought to have been declare d, he having been in possession of the property. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits t hat the defendant in the suit has not claim adverse possession and no counter cl aim was also filed for declaration of any right. Their case as projected in the written statement that they acquired the right, title and interest by virtue of the unregistered sale deeds, was rightly rejected by the learned First Appellate Court, in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, submits the learn ed counsel. It appears that the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the pl aintiffs/respondents by holding that they have lost their right, title and inter est over the land measuring 2 bighas 3 kathas 15 lechas because of Exts.-Ka and Kha sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant. As noticed above, the learne d Trial Court has ignored the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Proper ty Act, which provides that in case of tangible immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards, the sale can be made only by a registered instrument. T here is no dispute that in Exts.-Ka and Kha sale deeds the value of the property was shown as more than Rs.100/-. The learned Appellate Court has set aside such finding of the learned Trial Court and declared the right, title and interest o f the plaintiffs by holding that by virtue of Exts.-Ka and Kha, those being unre gistered deeds, no title can be passed on the defendant and accordingly the plai ntiffs would not lost their title over the suit land i.e. Schedule-D land. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the defenda nt’s possessory right ought to have been declared, keeping in view the long poss ession, cannot be accepted when the defendant in the written statement neither c laim any possessory right nor adverse possession or lodged any counter claim. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title and interest o ver the Schedule-D land, the defendant claimed that he acquired the title in res pect of the part of the Schedule-D land by right of purchase by Exts.-Ka and Kha . Those deeds being unregistered and the value of the property admittedly being more than Rs.100/-, by such document valid sale within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be constituted. That being the position, I am of the view that no substantial question o f law is involved in the present appeal to admit the same and hence the appeal s tands dismisses.