Regular Second Appeal No. 3759 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3759 of 2010 Date of decision : September 21, 2010 Gurdas Singh and others ....Appellants versus Mukhtiar Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants are in second appeal, having been successful in the trial court but unsuccessful in the lower appellate court. Mukhtiar Singh and his sisters Dhan Kaur and Dan Kaur respondents-plaintiffs filed suit against appellants-defendants for possession of suit land measuring 5 marlas comprised of killa no. 474/40 (0-5) situated in village Abadi alleging that plaintiffs' father Kehar Singh was owner in possession of the suit land and on his death, the plaintiffs became owners in possession thereof. However, about four months prior to the filing of the instant suit, defendants intended to take possession of the suit land forcibly. Accordingly, plaintiff no. 1 filed suit for permanent injunction on 15.9.2004, but during the pendency of the said suit, defendants took forcible Regular Second Appeal No. 3759 of 2010 -2- possession of the suit land. Consequently, injunction suit was withdrawn. The defendants are in illegal possession of the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought possession of the suit land. Defendants, inter alia, pleaded that plaintiff no. 1 Mukhtiar Singh sold suit property on 2.1.1981 to Maghar Singh defendant no. 5 for Rs 1750/- and writing to this effect was executed and defendant no. 5 thereafter exchanged suit land with defendant nos. 1 to 4 vide writing dated 20.12.1982 and since then defendants no. 1 to 4 are owners in possession of the suit land and have constructed their house thereon. There is other property of defendants nos. 1 to 4 adjacent to suit property. Defendants being in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years have become full owners thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by learned District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree 10.8.2010 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Defendants' version that plaintiff no. 1 sold suit land to defendant no. 5 vide writing dated 2.11.1981 for Rs 1750/- cannot be accepted. The said writing is unstamped and unregistered. Sale of immovable property for consideration of Rs 100/- or more could be made only through registered sale deed. Admittedly, there is no registered sale Regular Second Appeal No. 3759 of 2010 -3- deed regarding sale of suit land by plaintiff no. 1 to defendant no. 5. In addition to the aforesaid, all the three plaintiffs are son and daughters of Kehar Singh who was previous owner in possession of the suit land. On his death, the plaintiffs being heirs of Kehar Singh inherited the suit land. However, alleged writing is by Mukhtiar Singh plaintiff no. 1 only who could not alienate the suit land of the share of plaintiffs no. 2 and 3. Alleged writing dated 2.11.1981 has been reproduced in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the lower appellate court. The said writing does not pertain to sale of any land nor it mentions the particulars of any land nor it states about transfer of any land by plaintiff no. 1 to defendant no. 5. Consequently, the said writing even if taken into consideration does not support the case of the defendants. At the risk of repetition, it is to be noticed that title of the suit land could not be transferred through said writing which is unstamped and unregistered. Consequently, being owners of the suit land, plaintiffs are entitled to take back possession of the suit land which is admittedly now in possession of the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the aforesaid writing can be taken into consideration for collateral purpose. The contention does not help the appellants because through said writing neither tile of suit land nor even possession thereof was transferred to defendant no. 5. Consequently, the plaintiffs being owners of the suit land are entitled to possession thereof as they have filed suit for possession on the basis of title. Moreover, the aforesaid writing even does not depict that possession was transferred by plaintiff no. 1 to defendant no. 5 and if so, of Regular Second Appeal No. 3759 of 2010 -4- which land. The said writing also does not speak of sale of any land. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the plaintiffs have failed to prove as to when they were dispossessed. Even if it be so, the defendants cannot raise this plea because the plaintiffs have filed suit for possession on the basis of title. Defendants have not taken the plea of adverse possession nor they have proved to have acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiffs being owners of the suit land have been rightly granted decree for possession of the suit land. Their suit for possession based on title has been rightly decreed. The title over suit land was never transferred to defendant no. 5 or to the other defendants. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 21, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'