Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dt. 20.5.1994 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Regular Appeal No. 36/1986 (24/90 new number) confirming the judgment and decree dt. 23.9.1986 passed by Munsiff, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No. 270/1970. The short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by the plaintiff -respondent on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the disputed property. A patta has been issued in favour of the father of the plaintiff by Thakur Sahib Harnath Singh Ji in Falgun Sudi 13 Samvat 1987 which is corresponding to 1930. The plaintiff's father died in 1990. Thereafter, plaintiff -respondent remained in possession of the property. He has made constructions over the property thereafter, notice under Sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has been issued hence suit for declaration and injunction has been filed. The contention of the respondent was that the property in dispute was not in possession and ownership of the plaintiff respondent and Thakur Sahib Harnath Singh Ji was not competent to issue the patta and apart from it, it has been specifically pleaded that patta is not registered and not admissible in evidence. The trial Court has decreed the suit and appeal has also been dismissed, hence this appeal.
(2.) THE appeal has been admitted on 30.10.1995 on the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether on the basis of the unregistered patta, Ex. 1 relief for declaration of title in respect of the disputed land could be given by the lower Courts to the plaintiff respondent? Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal as well as the original record of the cases.
(3.) THE only contention of the appellant is that Ex. 1 patta is unregistered and hence relief of declaration could not be allowed to the respondent on the strength of unregistered patta and even it could not be looked into for collateral purposes. No title confers on the respondent on the strength of unregistered document and when respondent is not in ownership of the property, no relief could be allowed to him. In Ex. 1, there is no narration that possession has been handed over to him and in absence of relief for possession, the suit should have been dismissed. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that in 1930 there was no law which requires compulsory registration of the patta and otherwise also it is in the shape of Sanad and does not require any registration. It is not in dispute that Ex. 1 is not registered and counsel for the appellant has relied upon Hidayat dt. 10th August, 1894 by which law of registry have been made applicable for the documents, Will, Talaknama, acknowledgment deed etc. but admittedly Hidyat contained in 10.8.1894 have no application on the sale deed or documents relating to title. Further reliance has been placed on Jaipur Registration Act, 1944 but it has come into force on 8.2.1944 and Ex. 1 relates to 1930, hence the Jaipur Registration Act can have no application on Ex. 1. The counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Inder Lal & Ors. vs. Abdul Salam & Ors., : AIR 1983 Raj. 57 in which this Court has considered Hidayat from January, 1894 to the end of December, 18% published in gazette of Jaipur State in December, 1897 and it has been held that only provisions for realization of the prescribed penalty has been indicated but it has not been prescribed that the document would be altogether inadmissible in evidence and there is no provision that in absence of registration, the document would not be admitted in evidence in the Court. Further reliance has been placed on Motilal & Anr. vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors., : AIR 1964 Raj. 11 where it has been held that pattas ought to have been registered but admittedly, in the matter patta has been executed on 27.9.1948 after coming into force of the United State of Rajasthan Ordinance No. 1 of 1948 and provisions of the Indian Registration Act have been applied which is not the case here. Further reliance has been placed on Madhab Chandra Barua & Ors. vs. Smt. Joymati Kalitani Barua, : AIR 1976 Gauhati 10 where by applying the provision of Indian Registration Act, it has been found that the document relinquished deed is inadmissible in evidence but admittedly Ex. 1 patta disputed herein is not governed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908.;