Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th December 1987 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gaya, in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1985/7 of 1986. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court dated 30th November 1984 passed by Munsif-lll Court, Gaya, in Title Suit No. 70 of 1981. The defendants of that suit are the appellants here. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondents in the lower court was that 2 decimals of land of C. S. Khata No. 130, as described in Schedule-I of the plaint was purchased by the plaintiffs on the basis of an unregistered sale-deed dated 19th June, 1936 from the recorded tenants Jaldhari Singh and Dhanushdhari Singh who had acquired this land on partition from their co-sharers. The land was purchased for Rs. 45/-. However, the defendants -appellants, on the basis of revisional survey entry in their favour, started Intermeddling with the plaintiffs possession over the said land and, hence, the suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs title and for confirmation of possession and, in the alternative, tor recovery of possession. 3. The defendant-appellants case was that their ancestor had purchased the suit land for Rs. 95/- on the basis of Khista sale-deed. The sale was later documented by Yaddast, but this Yaddst got lost in the earth-quake of 1934. However, they amalgamated the land with their residential house and remained In possession and their names were rightly recorded In the revisional survey records of right. 4. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the sale-deed of the plaintiff-respondents was forged and fabricated and it had conferred no title upon them and so the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the plaintiffs were armed with at least a documentary evidence In their favour, whereas the defendants had failed to prove that their documents of purchase was lost in the earth-quake. The revisional survey record of right was, therefore, wrongly prepared and it was wrong on the part of the survey authorities to make an entry in favour of defendant-appellants Inspite- of documents of title in favour of plaintiff-respondents. The revisional survey record of right was, therefore, wrongly prepared and it was wrong on the part of the survey authorities to make an entry in favour of defendant-appellants Inspite- of documents of title in favour of plaintiff-respondents. When there was a document in favour of plaintiff-respondents, the oral evidence of possession was immaterial and it could not defeat the title of the plaintiff-respondents. 5. I find that in this appeal, the substantial question of law which were formulated, wore to the following effect: "(a) Whether the deed of sale of immovable property having a value less than Rs. 100/- is admissible in evidence, without the same being registered? (b) Whether the appellate court mis-directed itself in defeating the title of the defendants to the suit property by ignoring all contemporaneous documents by relying upon the unregistered sale-deed in reversing the judgment of the trial court? 6. On perusal of the appellate courts judgment, it is apparent that he reversed the judgment of the trial court solely on the ground that the plaintiff-respondents were armed with a document of title in their favour; whereas the defendants had failed to file any document of title. The survey record of right prepared in their names was wrong and invalid In view of documents of title in favour of plaintiff- respondents and so the oral evidence of possession was also immaterial. So now the pertinent question is whether an unregistered sale-deed can confer any title upon anybody. Section 54 of the T.P.Act has clearly laid down that to effect a valid transfer of immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/-, there must be a registered document. The property of the valuation of less than Rs. 100/- may be transferred either by a registered document or orally and it should be authenticated by delivery of possession. But when the sale Is reduced into writing or is based on a document, that document must be registered, otherwise it cannot confer valid title upon the vendee. The appellate court lost sight of this legal position and wrongly endorsed the validity of the plaintiffs title. Of course; the concerned document of title in favour of the plaintiff was admissible in evidence, but whether it would also confer valid title was the moot question which was wrongly decided by the appellate court. The appellate court lost sight of this legal position and wrongly endorsed the validity of the plaintiffs title. Of course; the concerned document of title in favour of the plaintiff was admissible in evidence, but whether it would also confer valid title was the moot question which was wrongly decided by the appellate court. However, if the plaintiffs failed and, of course, would fail in proving their valid title on the basis of concerned sale-deed dated 19.6.1936, they could prove their title by showing that they were all along in possession of the suit land right from the year 1936 and still, till "filing of the suit or till the date when they were dispossessed by the defendant-appellants. So the oral evidence in this connection, of course, gained importance and the appellate court ignored the same, without any valid reasoning. The finding of the appellate court that since the defendant- appellants had failed to prove their title on the basis of their own Khista Kewala, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff-respondents could not gain from the weakness of the case and evidence of the defendant appellants. The plaintiff-respondents had to prove their own title by their own evidence, oral or documentary. The documentary evidence in their favour was only the sale-deed dated 19th June, 1936 which could not confer valid title upon them, as it has been stated above. So fat the oral evidence was concerned, the plaintiff-respondents had adduced the evidence of five witnesses. The appellate- court had stated that P.Ws. 1 to 4 were the formal witnesses and P.W.5 Ram Chandra Singh, was one of the plaintiff- respondents. So the oral evidence on behalf of plaintiffs regarding their possession was also insufficient and it could not conclusively prove their title. As against the above, the defendant-appellants had led evidence of several witnesses to prove their possession and admittedly their names were entered in the survey record of rights. They were also assessed to rent by the revenue authorities by order dated 31st December, 1980. The survey record of right was, perhaps, finally published in the year 1970 and the said suit was filed in the year 1981. The defendants had also filed the orders passed under Section 103 of the B.T.Act. So there was ample and overwhelming evidence of possession in favour of defendant-appellants. The survey record of right was, perhaps, finally published in the year 1970 and the said suit was filed in the year 1981. The defendants had also filed the orders passed under Section 103 of the B.T.Act. So there was ample and overwhelming evidence of possession in favour of defendant-appellants. So in view of aforesaid evidence on the record, I fail to understand how the appellate court held that the plaintiffs had title over the suit land. If the plaintiffs title was not proved on the basis of their documents and, of course, they were unable to prove the same on the basis of this sale-deed dated 19th June 1936, they had to prove their title on the basis of their possession. It has been seen above that there was no sufficient and conclusive evidence of possession, much less continued possession, from the year 1936 upto the date when the suit was filed or upto the date when they were dispossessed. Admittedly, there was no case of the plaintiffs that they were dispossessed by the defendant -appellants in a particular year or on a particular date. That is why; perhaps, they prayed for recovery of possession, as an alternative relief. Their main relief was for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. Therefore, unless the plaintiffs had proved their valid title either on the basis of the valid document of sale or on the basis of oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession, they were not going to succeed in their suit. Since their document of title was invalid, they had to depend on oral evidence and It has already been seen above that they had failed to prove their possession by oral evidence on record as well. The appellate courts finding, therefore, regarding plaintiffs title and possession was flawed legally and factually. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are maintained.