RSA 79/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal by the defendant No.1 is directed against the judgment and d ecree dated 29.11.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I (FTC), Tinsu kia in Title Appeal No.27/2007, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in Tit le Suit No.14/2005, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs (responden ts herein) was decreed. The respondents herein as plaintiffs instituted the Title Suit No.14/200 5 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, for declaration of right, t itle, interest and also for recovery of khas possession over the suit land conte nding inter alia that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant Nos.2 to 5 inher ited the land measuring 23 bighas 1 katha 16 lechas under Dag Nos.618, 655, 666 and 712 covered by Periodic Patta No.71 of village Balijan Gaon, Mouza-Ghorbandi , from their father Satradhar Phukan, out of which the land measuring 2 bighas 9 lechas under Dag No.618 of Periodic Patta No.71 was the land involved in the su it. According to the plaintiffs, they were in peaceful possession of the suit la nd apart from other land and as the defendant No.1 on 25.06.1999 forcibly dispos sessed them from the suit land, they had to file the suit for declaration of rig ht, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession. The defendant No.1/a ppellant herein contested the suit by filing written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs in the plaint and stating inter alia that the suit land was s old by the father of the plaintiffs, Satradhar Phukan (since deceased) to one Dh armeswar Phukan by a registered deed of sale dated 11.06.1973 and thereafter sai d Dharmeswar Phukan reconveyed the suit land in favour of Satyendra Nath Phukan alias Satyen Phukan, the predecessor-in-interest of the proforma defendant Nos.2 to 4, by executing another registered deed of sale dated 21.07.1973. It has als o been pleaded in the written statement that said Satyendra Nath Phukan sold the suit land to the defendant No.1 by an unregistered sale deed on 16.11.1995. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Court below:- 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest as well as possess ion over the suit land till the alleged dispossession of the defendant No.1 on 2 5.6.99? 4. Whether the defendant No.1 has any right, title & interest over the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree, as prayed for? 6. What relief or reliefs, the parties are entitled to? During the course of trial while the plaintiffs examined 3(three) witnes ses and exhibited 7(seven) documents, the defendant No.1 despite filing the writ ten statement has chosen not to adduce any evidence. The proforma defendant Nos. 2 to 5 did not contest the suit. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record has decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiffs acquired the r ight, title and interest over the suit land by inheritance and they were disposs essed by the defendant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial C ourt, the defendant No.1 preferred the aforesaid appeal, which has also been dis missed vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 by the learned First Appellate Court. Hence the present appeal. It has been contended by Mr. Khatri, learned Sr. counsel for the appella nt/defendant No.1 that since the certified copies of the sale deed executed by t he plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest in favour of Dharmeswar Phukan on 11.06.1 973 and the deed of reconveyance executed by Dharmeswar Phukan in favour of Saty endra Nath Phukan dated 21.07.1973 were produced before the learned Court below as well as in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between the parties, the pl aintiffs had the knowledge about such transaction and such deeds having not been challenged, they are not entitled to a decree, which aspect of the matter has n ot been considered by the learned Courts below. It appears from the impugned judgment and decree that while the plaintif fs examined three witnesses and exhibited seven documents, the defendant No.1/ap pellant did not adduce any evidence. It is not in dispute that the Satradhar Phu kan, the father of the present plaintiffs, was the original owner of the suit la nd. After the death of Satradhar Phukan the property devolved on the plaintiffs as well as on the predecessor-in-interest of the proforma defendant Nos.2 to 4 a nd 5. The defendant No.1 though in the written statement pleaded that Satradhar Phukan sold the suit land in favour of Dharmeswar Phukan by a registered deed of sale dated 11.06.1973, who thereafter reconveyed the suit land to Satyen Phukan by another registered deed dated 21.07.1973 and thereafter Satyen Phukan execut ed an unregistered deed of sale in favour of the defendant No.1, neither of thes e documents were ever proved by the defendant. The pleadings in the written stat ement unless proved, cannot be the basis for recording any finding by the learne d Court below. The contention of the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that because of the production of the certified copies of such sale deed as well as the deed of reconveyance, the plaintiffs deemed to have the knowledge/notice about such transactions, in view of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the said deeds having not been challenged, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree , cannot be accepted for the reason that to constitute the deemed notice, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant has to prove that such deeds, which are compulsorily required to be registered, in fact have been registered under the provisions of Indian Registration Act, which the defendant No.1 has failed to do, as he did not adduce any evidence. The proform a defendant Nos.2 to 4, who are the heirs of Satyendra Nath Phukan alias Satyen Phukan have also not contested the suit. The defendant No.1’s claim that he acqu ired the right, title and interest in respect of the suit land by an unregistere d deed of sale also cannot be accepted, in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, when the value of the suit property according to the defendant No .1 himself was Rs.1300/-. In view of the above, I do not find involvement of any substantial quest ions of law in the present appeal and hence the same is dismissed. No cost.