Short Note : 1. The suit lands comprised of 1.46 acres of agricultural holdings at village Charoda in Sakti tahsil of Bilaspur district. It was not disputed that the suit lands originally belonged to Kusu and Kalu who both were brothers. It is also not disputed that the present plaintiff Chaindas is the S/o Kusu, who died in or about the year 1938-39. It was not disputed that Kaluram died issueless and Bhagi also was dead. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that Kalu had already separated and the suit lands were held by Kusu exclusively and on the death of his father, he along with his mother Mst. Rajkunwar inherited the suit lands left by Kusu. He further contended that on the remarriage of his mother, Mst. Rajkunwar, within about 5 years of the death of Kusu, he became the exclusive owner of the entire holding and was in possession of the same till July 1966 when the defendants forcibly dispossessed him. 3. The case of the defendants was that Kusu had two sons One Bhajo and the other Chaindas the present plaintiff. After the death of Kusu, their mother Mst. Rajkunwar managed the property including the lands in suit on behalf of the minors. The allegation of remarriage by Mst. Rajkunwar was denied by the defendants. According to them, Mst. Rajkunwar sold the suit lands for a consideration of Rs. 395 to their father Kapilnath on 21.3.1944 and Kapilnath was placed in possession of the suit lands on the aforesaid date in pursuance of the said sale. The deed of sale executed by Mst. Rajkunwar in favour of Kapilnath, the father of the defendants in the year 1944, was however, not registered. Kapilnath, the father of the defendants died in the year 1953 and after his death, the defendants have been in possession of the suit lands. On 2.9.1955, Kaluram executed a document disclosing his no objection to the mutation in favour of the defendants on the basis of the sale by Mst. Rajkunwar in their favour. The consent was required because the suit lands were recorded in the revenue records jointly in the name of Kaluram also though he had undisputedly no interest therein, being a separated brother and the suit lands having been allotted to the share of Kusu. Rajkunwar in their favour. The consent was required because the suit lands were recorded in the revenue records jointly in the name of Kaluram also though he had undisputedly no interest therein, being a separated brother and the suit lands having been allotted to the share of Kusu. The defendants have claimed that by remaining in continuous possession for more than 12 years asserting themselves to be the owners of the suit land, they have perfected their title by adverse possession even if the sale-deed was not valid for want of registration. The defendants also claimed the benefit of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act by contending that since Kapilnath was placed in possession of the suit lands by virtue of the said deed, their possession is protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff by holding that the unregistered deed of sale did not confer any right on the defendants and that the documents Ex.D-1 and D-2, both being documents of transfer of interest in immovable property could not be looked into for any purpose. The trial Court was of the opinion that after excluding the aforesaid two documents, there was no cogent evidence to establish the fact of possession of the defendants. 5. The lower appellate Court, however, reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court for the following reasons: (i) That the unregistered sale-deed Ex.D-1 was executed on a stamped paper which was purchased and issued from the treasury on 17.2.1944 and was genuine. (ii) That in the Khasra for the year 1953-55, there was a mention in the remark column that Kapilnath, the father of the defendants had asserted himself to be the purchaser of the suit lands. (iii) That later on in the year 1955, Kaluram executed the document Ex.D-2 giving his consent to the mutation in favour of the defendants and therein in it was stated that since in the year 1954. Mst. Rajkunwar had already sold the suit lands the defendants are in possession, their names should be mutated because he had no right, title or interest in the suit lands, after separation from his brother Kusu. Mst. Rajkunwar had already sold the suit lands the defendants are in possession, their names should be mutated because he had no right, title or interest in the suit lands, after separation from his brother Kusu. (iv) That the occasion for obtaining this consent arose because, despite Kaluram admittedly having no title or interest, the suit lands continued to be recorded in the name of both Kaluram and Kusu an the Revenue Authority wanted the consent of the other recorded holder also before effecting the mutation in favour of the defendants. It is, however, true that while giving this consent, Kaluram did recover a sum of Rs. 130 from the defendants, but from the contents of the documents, if read as a whole, it is apparent that the document was not meant for transferring the rights or interest in the immovable property. It was nothing but a written consent clearly stating that Kaluram had no right, title or interest in the lands at all and since his name continued to remain in the revenue records, he was giving the consent for mutation. (v) That the unregistered document of sale could be considered for the collateral purposes of showing the nature of possession even if it could not be relied for claiming title. 6. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the defendants have perfected their title by remaining in adverse possession of the suit lands and the trial Court was wrong in observing that since the defendants had come with the case of entering into possession on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed, they could not rely on the case of adverse possession. The trial Court was definitely wrong in holding so and the lower appellate Court has rightly reversed the same. Even when a person enters into possession of the Immovable property as a purchaser of the same from the original vendor in pursuance of a document of sale, which is found to be invalid or defective for any reason, his possession claiming himself to be the owner of the property for a continuous period of more than 12 years, to the knowledge of his vendor, prescribes and perfects his title by adverse possession. The lower appellate Court has also held in favour of the defendants that their possession was even otherwise protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. I do not find it necessary to deal with this aspect of the case because the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by holding that the defendants had perfected their title by remaining in adverse possession of the suit lands for more than 12 years. Appeal dismissed.