RSA No. 4354 of 2003 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4354 of 2003 Date of Decision: 21-07-2009 Karnail Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Jaswant Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Surinder Dhull, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Shri Ajay Singla, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the suit for possession in respect of plot No. 26 measuring 9 marlas, was dismissed. The plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 12.1.1979. It was asserted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since the date of purchase and the plaintiffs raised some construction over the said property, whereas the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land, but have raised construction in the year 1994. Earlier the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, but in RSA No. 4354 of 2003 (2) view of the fact that the construction was raised by the defendants allegedly after filing of the suit, the plaintiffs amended the suit so as to claim a decree for mandatory injunction. The stand of the defendants was that in fact, the defendants have purchased the property from Gurdial Singh, father of the appellant, on 15.11.1988 in the sum of Rs.8,000/- by way of writing executed by Gurdial Singh on the back of the sale deed in his favour. It is also alleged that the defendants have raised construction by spending Rs.1,50,000/- and also installing a hand pump and a cattle shed thereon. The plaintiffs denied their signatures on the aforesaid writing on the back of the sale deed dated 15.11.1988. The learned trial Court decreed the suit, but the learned first Appellate Courts found that the plaintiffs have failed to lead any evidence in respect of the execution of the writing Exhibit D.1. The plaintiffs have not led any expert evidence to dispute the signatures or the thumb impressions of Gurdial Singh on the aforesaid agreement. It was also found that the sale deed dated 15.11.1988 has been produced by the defendants containing endorsement dated 15.11.1988, which supports the stand taken by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the defendants have not led any evidence in support of their plea of possession, except the writing Exhibit D.1. It is contended that Exhibit D.1 is inadmissible in evidence as interest in the immovable property of more than Rs.100/- can not be transferred in such a manner. In the absence of any registered sale deed, the defendants cannot claim any interest over the suit property. RSA No. 4354 of 2003 (3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, but do not find any merit in the present appeal. The execution of the writing Exhibit D.1 is proved in view of the overwhelming evidence led by the defendants and lack of evidence of the plaintiffs to dispute the execution of the aforesaid writing. The learned first Appellate Court has found that Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, contemplates that if a document, which requires registration is not registered, still it can be taken into consideration for the collateral purposes i.e., to determine the possession of the defendants. Thus, even if the aforesaid document is not registered in terms of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the same can be taken into consideration for determining the possession of the defendants. Thus, the finding that the possession of the defendants over the suit land cannot be said to be that of an unauthorised occupant, which may entitle the plaintiffs to a decree for mandatory injunction, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21-07-2009 ds