JUDGMENT M. M. Gopal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment dated 11-9-1984 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which be dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court dated 1-2-1984. The trial court dismissed the suit. 2. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the relevant papers on record. 3. The facts of the case are that on 20-11-1982 Bishan Singh had filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 against Ratan Singh, Naththi Singh, Smt. Sakha, Gaon Sabha and U.P. State. It is alleged that originally the land belonged to one Ram Singh (father of the defendants no. 1 and 2 Naththi Singh and Ratan Singh and husband of defendant no. 3 Smt. Sakha). It is alleged that in the year 1962 Ram Singh has taken Rs. 760/- and has delivered the possession to the plaintiff and it was agreed upon that the registration of this document will be done later on and then the name of the plaintiff may be mutated. It is further alleged in the plaint that instead of doing the registration Ram Singh tried to take possession of the land from the plaintiff but the same was refused, hence he was in adverse possession since 1963 and had acquired right over the land in suit. On 22-1-83 written statement was filed by the defendants. They have denied the right of the plaintiff and have also denied that any possession was demanded in the year 1963. The possession was permissive and on that basis the plaintiff could not acquire any right. The trial court by its order dated 1-2-1984 dismissed the suit and held that the possession of the plaintiff was not adverse and he could not acquire any right on the basis of such possession. The lower appellate court bat dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 11-9-1981 and held that on the basis of the document the right or possession could not have been transferred to the plaintiff and the possession was not adverse hence the plaintiff could not acquire any right on the basis of possession. The lower appellate court bat dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 11-9-1981 and held that on the basis of the document the right or possession could not have been transferred to the plaintiff and the possession was not adverse hence the plaintiff could not acquire any right on the basis of possession. Thus both the courts have held that the possession was not adverse and the alleged document cannot be the basis for transfer of any right or title to the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff was therefore dismissed by both the courts. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant in a way conceded that these are the findings of fact and it cannot be challenged in the second appeal but he has vehemently argued that under Section 164 of the U.P. Act I of 1951 he acquired right over the land because he was in possession and continued in possession since 1962. Thus so far as the finding of acquiring any right on the basis of adverse possession is concerned it is final and there is no need to comment on it any further. Section 164 of U.P. Act I of 1951 runs as follows Section 164. "Any transfer of any holding or part thereof made by a bhumidhar by which possession of transferor to the transferee for the purpose of securing any payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, and existing or future debt or the performance of any engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability, shall not withstanding anything contained in the document of transfer or any law for the time being in force, be deemed at all times and for all purposes to be a sale to the transferee and in every such sale the provisions of Section 154 and 163 shall apply." From this section it is clear that if possession by a bhumidhar is transferred to transferee for the purposes of securing any payment of money (advanced or to be advanced etc.) it shall be deemed to be a sale to the transferee. Thus Section 164 of U.P. Act I of 1951 applies only in a case for the recovery of money and the possession has been delivered for the purpose of securing any payment of money. But the deed on which the learned counsel tries to rely oil (ext. Thus Section 164 of U.P. Act I of 1951 applies only in a case for the recovery of money and the possession has been delivered for the purpose of securing any payment of money. But the deed on which the learned counsel tries to rely oil (ext. Ka 3) is not such a document. It does not contemplate such condition. It is an unregistered document with a clear wording of sale-deed and the consideration of which (Rs. 760/-) has been received by the executant of that document. A right or title can be transferred by the provisions of Sections applicable in relevant Act and of this Act I of 1951. Any sheet of paper cannot transfer right contravening other provisions of Transfer of Property Act or Registration Act. If there are specific exceptions, they are mentioned in the present Act I of 1951 as Section 158. In the same way Section 164 shall be applicable in case if the possession is delivered for the purpose of securing payment of some money ; but the present document cannot be said to be a document or transfer with possession for securing any payment of money. Apart from this there is no such pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff acquired any right under Section 164 of the Act I of 1951. 5. I, therefore, see no force in the second appeal. It is a case of dead findings of facts. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with cost throughout.