RSA No. 2632 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2632 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.10.2008 Kuldip Singh ..Appellant. Versus Joga Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. S.S.Chandi, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. By way of this appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant No.3 has been accepted and the judgment of the trial Court has been set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the case as pleaded by the appellant in his plaint is that he along with his father Gurdial Singh was living jointly in the house and towards the Southern side of their house, the portion shown as ABCD in the attached site plan measuring 2-1/2 marlas comprising of Khasra No.204 was purchased by him on 12.4.1975 from defendant Nos.1 and 2(respondent No.2 and 3) for a sum of Rs. 750/- and a writing was executed with regard to the purchase of property in dispute and thereafter he raised construction of kitchen and one room in this property. It is further averred that the appellant is in peaceful possession of the property in dispute since 1975 and the respondent No.1 as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right, title or interest in the property in dispute. However, Joga Singh defendant No.3, now respondent No.1 who is claiming a sale deed in his favour is threatening the possession of the plaintiff. Hence this suit. RSA No. 2632 of 2008 2 Upon notice, the defendant/respondents contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff- appellant is a co-sharer in Khasra No.204 and he has raised construction of his house over the property which adjoins the property in dispute. It was further averred that the property is joint and has not been partitioned. It was also averred that plaintiff never purchased 2-1/2 marlas of land as alleged by him and he is not in exclusive possession of the disputed property. It was also alleged that document dated 12.4.1975 is a forged and fabricated document and does not transfer any title of the property in dispute. It was also pleaded that in fact defendant Nos.1 and 2(respondent Nos.2 and 3) have sold the property in dispute to the defendant No.3(respondent No.1) vide registered sale deed dated 6.5.1998 and the defendant No.3 is in possession of the said portion as a co- sharer. Hence the dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The trial court after going through the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant by holding that he and his father are owners in possession of the property in dispute. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No.3(respondent No.1) filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 26.3.2008 accepted the said appeal and set aside the findings of the trial Court on issue No.1 holding that writing Ex. P-2 on the basis of which plaintiff-appellant has based his claim to the ownership of the property in dispute does not pass title of the property in favour of the appellant for want of registration, as admittedly this document is unregistered and vide this writing the plaintiff-appellant has alleged to have purchased the property in dispute for a sum of Rs.750/- under Section 17 of the Registration Act, sale of property of the value of Rs.100/- or more can be effected only by a registered instrument. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal in this court challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. RSA No. 2632 of 2008 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. I find no merit in this appeal. Admittedly, the appellant has alleged to have purchased the property in dispute vide Ex.P2 for a sum of Rs.750/- which is a unregistered document. In view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, the said writing is not sufficient to pass title of the property in dispute in favour of the appellant. The law is well settled in this regard. On the other hand, the respondent has proved on record Ex.D2, copy of the registered sale deed vide which he purchased the property in dispute from respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the execution of the said document. Thus, there is no dispute that the respondent No.1 has become the owner of the property in dispute. So far as possession of the property in dispute is concerned, again the appellant has failed to lead sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his exclusive possession over the same. It has been admitted by the appellant that the property comprising of Khasra No.204 is a joint property and partition of Khasra No. 204 has not been effected. The contention of the appellant to the effect that the plaintiff is having oral transfer in his favour on the basis of writing Ex.P2, which is followed by delivery of possession and has raised his kitchen etc. in the suit property, the same constitutes a valid transfer in his favour is without any weight. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in this regard cited as Amin Chand and another Versus Hazari Ram and others AIR 1935 Lahore 164 is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as in the case relied upon, an oral sale was made in favour of mortgagee who was already in possession of the land whereas in the present case, the appellant or for that matter even his father earlier to the writing alleged by them were not in possession of the property in dispute. Moreover, the appellant has failed to prove his exclusive possession over the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to argue that there is an admission on the part of DW3 Nirmal Singh (attesting witness of the sale deed dated 6.5.1998 Ex.D2) that RSA No. 2632 of 2008 4 Kitchen, Bath Room and Hand Pump of plaintiff is in Khasra No.204 and that site plan Ex.P1 of the plaintiff is correct and are shown as ABCD in red colour in Ex.P1 is in ownership and in possession of the plaintiff is erroneous. It is settled principle of law that statement of a witness is to be considered in its entirety and if entire statement of DW3 Nirmal Singh is read, it comes out that he has categorically denied the fact of ownership and possession of appellant over the disputed land. In any case, the lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that appellant has failed to prove his exclusive possession over the property in dispute . For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Dismissed. October 24, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE