IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 150 of 1998. Judgement reserved on: 12.9.2008. Date of decision: September 19, 2008. Machla Ram ….. Appellant Vs. Munshi Ram ….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj vice Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the judgement, decree dated 10.2.1998 passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1991 modifying the judgement, decree dated 31.1.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (I), Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 184 of 1998. 2. The pleaded case of respondent- plaintiff is that vide mortgage deed dated 9.8.1983 and in consideration of Rs.500/-, he mortgaged to appellant- defendant land measuring 6 marlas, part of land comprised in khata No. 51 min, khatoni No. 76 min, khasra No. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 528, measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas, Tika Sawahalwa, Mouza Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur for five years. The appellant- defendant undertook to return the land to him after five years after receiving Rs.500/- and handover vacant possession of the suit land to respondent. The appellant on demand and in violation of deed dated 9.8.1983 has not handed over the possession to respondent, therefore, respondent filed the suit for possession by way of redemption of the suit land. 3. The appellant contested the suit by taking several preliminary objections, such as maintainability, locus-standi, non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, valuation and limitation. On merits, the appellant has submitted that he is in possession of the suit land as per agreement, which cannot be enforced for want of registration. The appellant took plea of adverse possession. He has submitted that he has spent Rs.30,000/- for installing “Atta Chaki” on the suit land. The respondent has filed frivolous suit in order to harass him. The respondent filed replication and reiterated his stand, which was taken by him in the plaint. The learned Sub Judge passed a preliminary decree on 31.1.1991 in favour of the respondent for vacant possession of the mortgaged land on payment/ deposit Rs.500/- within thirty days and the appellant shall remove his “Atta Chaki” and structure from the suit land within thirty days of the date of decree. 4. The decision dated 31.1.1991 was assailed by the appellant in appeal and the learned District Judge while dismissing the appeal on 10.2.1998 has modified the judgement, decree dated …3… 31.1.1991 as ordered in the operative part of the impugned judgement, which has been assailed by way of appeal in this court by the appellant- defendant. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the document which requires compulsory registration can be looked into evidence without registration? 2. Whether in the absence of co-owners, the suit was maintainable? 3. Whether the decree for possession can be granted when the suit for redemption of mortgage was not maintainable? 4. Whether the courts below have failed to draw the true impost of document Ex. PW 1/A alongwith oral evidence and thereby wrongly decreed the suit? 5. I have heard Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj,Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record. The respondent had filed suit for redemption on the basis of document Ex. PW 1/A, which was not registered and therefore, inadmissible in evidence. The learned District Judge has erred in granting decree of possession on the basis of title of the respondent and on payment of Rs.500/- by the respondent to the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the …4… impugned judgement, decree and has submitted that the respondent is the owner of the land and if document dated 9.8.1983 Ex. PW 1/A is not admissible for want of registration, then the respondent is entitled to decree for possession on the basis of title. Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 4. 6. The substantial questions of law No. 1 to 4 are interconnected, therefore, all of them are being taken up together for decision. The case of the respondent is that he mortgaged 6 marlas of land to appellant for a consideration of Rs.500/- for five years vide document dated 9.8.1983 Ex. PW 1/A. The respondent has pleaded that he created mortgage of the suit land vide Ex. PW 1/A. The document Ex. PW 1/A is not registered, therefore, it cannot be read in evidence to show that respondent had created a mortgage in favour of appellant of the suit land vide Ex. PW 1/A. But this is not the end of the matter. The appellant has not denied the title of the respondent on the suit land. The appellant has even pleaded adverse possession against the respondent on the suit land. In other words, the appellant has admitted respondent to be the owner of the suit land. In these circumstances, the appellant can resist the suit only by proving his adverse possession on the suit land, which he has miserably failed to prove. 7. The learned District Judge has committed no error in granting decree of possession in favour of respondent on the basis of title of the respondent after relying on the case law mentioned in para-9 of the impugned judgement. It has been submitted that other co-owners were not impleaded in the suit, hence the suit is bad for …5… not impleading other co-owners. The respondent had put the appellant in possession of the suit land and he demanded possession of the suit land back from the appellant. The appellant in the written statement has not taken specific plea that suit is bad for not impleading other co-owners. The perusal of impugned judgement would show that this point was not argued before first appellate court. In these circumstances, suit cannot be held to be bad for not impleading other co-owners in the suit. It has not been pointed out what material evidence has not been considered by the court below. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to make out any case for interference. The substantial questions of law No. 1 to 4 are accordingly decided against the appellant. 8. No other point was urged. 9. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. September 19, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.