R.S.A No. 1827 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1827 of 2008 Decided On : 05.10.2009 Ram Piari ...Appellant versus Phoolwati alias Phoolpati and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the respondents NO.2 to 5. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, was decreed. The plaintiffs claim to be owner in possession of the land measuring 19 marlas on the basis of registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.1964 executed by Sadhu in favour of Mamu Ram, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs for a total sale consideration of Rs.700/-. To prove possession over the suit land and Sale Deed, one of the plaintiffs' Jeeta Ram appeared as PW-1. PW-2 Jagdish R.S.A No. 1827 of 2008 -2- Garg, official from the DC Office has been examined who has produced record in respect of execution of the Sale Deed. PW-3 Moti Ram has been examined to prove the possession over the suit land. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Sale Deed dated 21.12.1964 is a document which requires compulsory registration but in the absence of registration, the same can be taken into consideration only for collateral purposes. It was also found that the plaintiffs are in possession but can be dispossessed in due process of law. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed. In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court found the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit property on account of Sale Deed which was found to be a registered document. The findings of the trial Court that the Sale Deed is a registered document, was reversed. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed C.M No. 9964-C of 2009 to produce on record the original Sale Deed dated 21.12.1964 so as to prove that in fact the document dated 21.12.1964 was a registered Sale Deed. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondents has produced the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 21.12.1964. In view of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court, the sale deed in favour of predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was a registered document, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality. The defendant has not R.S.A No. 1827 of 2008 -3- examined any witness to controvert the stand of the plaintiffs. Even none of the defendants has appeared as witness, as well. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs are owner of the suit land on the basis of Sale Deed dated 21.12.1964, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. OCTOBER 05, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE