IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 188 of 2011 Decided on: 27.7.2011 Roop Singh …Appellant. Versus Mehar Singh & Others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 9. Kuldip Singh, Judge(oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 29.9.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 102/2006 affirming the judgment, decree dated 6.11.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2005. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had purchased the suit land on 2.12.1965 for a consideration of `550/- and a writing Ext.PW-2/A to this effect was also executed. In view of purchase of the suit land by the appellant vide writing Ext.PW-2/A, the appellant has become owner of the suit land. The two Courts below have erred in not relying Ext.PW-2/A for establishing the title of appellant over 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes. 2 suit land. It has been submitted that when writing Ext.PW-2/A was executed, the oral sale was permissible. 3. The short question involved is whether writing Ext.PW-2/A requires registration or not. The Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 provides that a document creating an interest above `100/- in immovable property requires registration. It has not been denied that in Ext.PW-2/A consideration amount `550/- has been stated. No doubt, oral sale in the year 1965 was permissible, but it is not a case of oral sale in view of writing Ext.PW-2/A. The appellant had opted for writing Ext.PW-2/A showing consideration `550/- which is not registered, therefore, it cannot be looked into evidence for purposes of title of appellant in the suit land. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the legal position involved in the case. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also all pending applications. ( Kuldip Singh ), July 27,2011. Judge. (vt)