JUDGMENT MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J.—This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 15.5.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Bilaspur whereby the appeal of respondent-plaintiff No. 1 Ishwar Singh was allowed and his suit for possession in regard to Khasra No. 297 was decreed by setting aside the decree and judgment dated 12.2.1986 of Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur in which it was held that the appellants-defendants and pro forma respondents-defendants had acquired valid title over the land of this Khasra number by adverse possession. The cross-appeal filed by one of the appellants-defendants, namely, Lachhman Singh was also partly allowed in respect of Khasra No. 331 and decree and judgment dated 12.2.1986 of Senior Sub-Judge was modified holding that Ishwar Singh was entitled to possession of Khasra No. 331 on payment of Rs. 500/- as mortgage money. The Senior Sub-Judge had passed decree for possession of Khasra No. 331 in favour of Ishwar Singh and against the defendants without payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Ishwar Singh had filed civil suit for possession of two pieces of land, one measuring 1-18 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 331 and another measuring 4-14 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 297 situated in village Lakhanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur (hereinafter called the land in dispute) on the allegations that the defendants had taken forcible possession thereof eleven years ago and in league with the Revenue Staff got themselves recorded in possession "BILA SHIFTH". Denying these allegations the defence set up by the defendants was three-fold. Firstly, that their father Kapura and after his death they have been non-occupancy tenant; secondly, by agreement dated 31.5.1967 mortgage was created in favour of their father Kapura for consideration of Rs. 500/- and thirdly, they acquired ownership in January 1970 for consideration of Rs. 3,000/- by sale since when they have been continuing as owner in possession of the land in dispute. In the alternative, the plea of adverse possession was also taken claiming that their possession has been open, continuous and hostile for more than 14 years. The preliminary objection of limitation and no cause of action was also preferred. In rejoinder Ishwar Singh denied the pleas of tenancy and mortgage of Khasra No. 331 for Rs. 500/-; sale of the whole of the land in dispute for Rs. The preliminary objection of limitation and no cause of action was also preferred. In rejoinder Ishwar Singh denied the pleas of tenancy and mortgage of Khasra No. 331 for Rs. 500/-; sale of the whole of the land in dispute for Rs. 3,000/- as well as that of adverse possession, and it was prayed that if a part of the land was proved to be mortgaged with the defendants, the same might be redeemed without payment as the defendants have received double benefit than the mortgage money by way of produce from the land. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently rejected the plea of tenancy relying upon the revenue record to which presumption of truth is attached and defendants had not led any evidence to rebut the same except the bald statement of one of them, namely, Lachhman Singh. 4. In revenue record Jamabandi Ex. PA for the year 1963-64 of Khasra No. 331; Jamabandi Ex. PB for the year 1968-69 of Khasra No 297 and Jamabandi Ex. PC for the year 1958-69 of Khasra No. 297 and 331 Ishwar Singh was recorded as owner in possession. For the first time, this entry was changed in Kharif 1972 when on 17.3.1972 Kapura, the father of the defendants, was recorded in possession of Khasra No, 331 as mortgagee BILA SHIFTH as shown in Khasra Girdawari Ex. DB for the period from Kharif 1969 to Rabi 1974. Similarly, in respect of Khasra No. 297 for the first time Kapura, the father of the defendants, was recorded in possession by virtue of sale for a consideration of Rs. 3,000A in Kharif 1972 on 17 3.1972 as shown in Khasra Girdawari Ex. DB for the period from Kharif 1969 to Rabi, 1974. The change in this Khasra Girdawari was incorporated in later Jamabandi Ex. DA for the year 1973-74. However, in a daily diary report Ex. DC, which was of earlier date i.e. 25.11.1971, it was not mentioned that the change in Khasra Girdawari of Khasra Nos. 331 and 297 was caused by mortgage and sale respectively. So far mortgage of Khasra No. 331 for a consideration of Rs. 500/- in favour of Kapura, the father of the defendants, is concerned, it was effected by agreement Ex. DW-2/A dated 31.5.1967, • which was duly proved by the evidence of its marginal witnesses Santosh Singh DW-2 and Bhagnoo Ram DW-5, and Nand La! So far mortgage of Khasra No. 331 for a consideration of Rs. 500/- in favour of Kapura, the father of the defendants, is concerned, it was effected by agreement Ex. DW-2/A dated 31.5.1967, • which was duly proved by the evidence of its marginal witnesses Santosh Singh DW-2 and Bhagnoo Ram DW-5, and Nand La! DW-3, the son of the scribe of this document, who has proved the signatures of his father and also the entries from the petition writers register maintained by his father. The signatures of Ishwar Singh on Ex. DW-2/A and against the relevant entries in the petition writers register have not been specifically denied by him in his statement. Therefore, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the defendants have been in possession of the land of Khasra No. 331 as mortgagee and Ishwar Singh is not entitled to its possession by way of redemption. 5. It has been rightly held concurrently by both the Courts below that document Ex. DW-2/A required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, in the absence of which it was not admissible in evidence and any amount of oral and other documentary evidence to prove the mortgage was barred by provisions of Section 91 of the Evidence Act. But relying upon the case law in Quda Mir and others v. Moma Bhat and others, AIR 1972 Jammu and Kashmir 81 and Kanbi Ladha Ukeda v. Joshi Jestaram Gangaram and others, AIR 1971 Guj 239, the Courts below have further held that if the mortgagee enters into possession as a result of unregistered document and remains in possession for more than 12 years, he does not acquire ownership by adverse possession but the transaction of mortgage becomes legally operative and the mortgagor is entitled to redeem the land. This Court affirms these findings as learned Counsel for the defendants has not been able to point out any substantial question of law to interfere with them. Further support is found from a decision of the Supreme Court in Lilachand Tuljaram Gujar v. Mallappa Tukaram Borgavi, AIR 1960 SC 856, wherein it was observed :— "Where the mortgagee comes into possession of the property pursuant to the usufructuary mortgage, his possession has a lawful origin. Further support is found from a decision of the Supreme Court in Lilachand Tuljaram Gujar v. Mallappa Tukaram Borgavi, AIR 1960 SC 856, wherein it was observed :— "Where the mortgagee comes into possession of the property pursuant to the usufructuary mortgage, his possession has a lawful origin. A mere assertion of an adverse title on his part cannot affect the subsisting equity of redemption of the mortgagors or operate to shorten the period of limitation prescribed for a suit for redemption." Therefore, though the transaction of mortgage in respect of Khasra No. 331 was evidenced by unregistered document, yet Ishwar Singh is entitled to redeem the same by payment of mortgage amount of Rs. 500/-, for which a preliminary decree has been passed in his favour 6. To prove their case that the land in dispute was sold to them for a consideration of Rs. 3f000/-, the defendants have not placed on record the sale deed, which was admittedly scribed by Petition Writer Gurditta Mail and witnessed by marginal witnesses Ram Dass DW-3 and Paras Ram. Admitting that the sale deed was gutted in fire, the defendants were given permission to lead secondary evidence but they could not produce a copy of the sale deed from the Office of Sub-Registrar, which shows that the document was not registered. Instead, they have only produced a copy of the entries of the petition writers register Ex. DW-3/A, which only refers to the execution of some sale deed by Ishwar Singh in favour of Kapura in respect of land measuring 6 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 297 situated in village Lakhanpur. Assuming a document of sale deed was executed between Ishwar Singh and Kapura, it was definitely not legal and valid to pass on the title of the land of Khasra No, 297 in favour of Kapura, the father of the defendants, in the absence of registration of the said sale deed. It cannot be disputed that the said sale deed was compulsorily registerable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as Section 17 of the Registration Act, in the absence of which no amount of oral and other documentary evidence could prove the transaction of sale as provided under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. 7. The submission made by learned Counsel for the defendants that this document Ex. 7. The submission made by learned Counsel for the defendants that this document Ex. DW-3/A can be relied upon to hold that the possession of the defendants over Khasra No. 297 was from 14,1.1970, when the said sale deed was executed, is also without any merit, as there is nothing in this document, which is only an entry of the petition writers register, to suggest in respect of handing over the possession of Khasra No. 297 to the defendants. Even in daily diary report Ex. DC, which was recorded on 25.11.1971 it is not mentioned that the defendants had come into possession of Khasra No. 297 by virtue of sale deed executed by the plaintiff in their favour. For the first time the possession of the defendants was recorded on 17.3.1972 for Kharif, 1972 by virtue of sale for consideration of Rs. 3,000. 8. The submission of the learned Counsel for the defendants that though possession of the defendants was recorded on 17.3.1972 yet they had been in actual possession from earlier date, which was 14.1 1370 when the sale deed was executed, cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence on record, more specifically, a copy of the sale deed which the defendants have failed to bring on record despite permission granted to them to prove the sale deed by way of secondary evidence. Therefore, the possession of the defendants can be held earliest w.e.f. 25.11.1971, when daily diary report Ex. DC was recorded and from this date the suit filed on 7 11 1983 was within limitation, The alleged admission of plaintiff Ishwar Singh PW~ 1 in respect of possession of the defendants over the suit land is being read out of context. The admission that from 1970 Kapura, the father of the defendants, had forcibly taken over the possession, pertains to Khasra No. 331 measuring 1-18 Bighas and not to Khasra Ho 297 measuring 4 14 Bighas. Khasra No. 331 has already been held to be in possession of the defendants by virtue of mortgage effected in their favour on 315.1967. 9. When the defendants have failed to prove their possession over Khasra No. 297 for more than. 12 years, the defence of adverse possession has been rightly rejected by the District Judge. Moreover, there are neither pleadings nor evidence proving the necessary ingredients of adverse possession. 9. When the defendants have failed to prove their possession over Khasra No. 297 for more than. 12 years, the defence of adverse possession has been rightly rejected by the District Judge. Moreover, there are neither pleadings nor evidence proving the necessary ingredients of adverse possession. If the defendants were put in possession by virtue of sale as alleged by them, their possession from the very beginning was permissive and it is neither pleaded nor proved that from which date their possession became hostile. It is well settled that possession howsoever long does not become adverse unless it is qualitatively open and hostile denying the title of the real owner continuously for more than 12 years. 10. It is further urged on behalf of the defendants that since the defendants were put in possession of Khasra No. 297 in part performance ot the sale transaction, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of possession on the basis of his title This submission has been raised to be rejected, as it is already held by this Court that defendants have failed to prove that they were put in possession of Khasra No. 297 by virtue of sale deed allegedly executed on 14.1.1970. As provided under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the conditions necessary for making out the defence of part performance to an action in ejectment by the owner are laid down by the Supreme Court in Nathulal v. Phoolchand, AIR 1970 SC 546, These are :— "(1) that the transferor has contracted to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; (2) that the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession continues in possession in part performance of the contract; (3) that the transferee has done some act in furtherance of the contract; and (4) that the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract. None of these conditions has either been proved or available to the defendants in the present case as already discussed hereinabove. Therefore, the case law in respect of part performance cited by the learned Counsel for the defendants need not be referred to. None of these conditions has either been proved or available to the defendants in the present case as already discussed hereinabove. Therefore, the case law in respect of part performance cited by the learned Counsel for the defendants need not be referred to. No other point is raised on behalf of the defendants. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.-