Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 3-7-89, passed by II ADJ, Rewa in C. A. No. 22-A/82, reversing the judgment-decree dated 29-9-81, passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Rewa in C. S. No. 123-A/80, defendant/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC. ( 2. ) THE appeal has been heard on the following substantial questions of law : " (1) Whether Ex. P-3 could confer title to respondent No. 1 Ramadhar in respect of the suit property ? (2) Whether the finding that the plaintiff remains in possession of the suit property continuously from the date of execution of Ex. P-3 till date is perverse ?" ( 3. ) LATE Hirdan had two wives. Ram Pyare @ Pyare and defendant Late Ram Nihore respectively were sons from first and second wives. Late Hirdan in his life time settled agricultural lands separately in the name of Late Pyare and Late Ram Nihore. Suit land Khasra No. 1001 (new No. 1001/1, 1001/2) area 1. 75 acre, Village Amiliha, Tehsil Hujur, District Rewa was recorded in the name of Late Pyare and he alone remained in its exclusive possession till Miti Ashad Wadi 14 Samvat 2001 corresponding to the year 1944. Late Pyare sold the suit land in the year 1944 to the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar for a sum of Rs. 70/- by executing an unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) and the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar was accordingly placed in possession. Receipt of payment of Rs. 70/- (Ex. P-4) was also executed by Late Pyare. Since then plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar remained in possession of the suit land. Late Pyare died in July, 1956. Defendant late Ram Nihore driven away the widow of Late Pyare and forcibly obtained possession of property left by Late Pyare sometime in the year 1971 in clandestine manner got mutated his name in the revenue record in respect of the suit land Khasra No. 1001 area 1. 75 acres. Thereafter, defendant Late Ram Nihore and defendant/appellants who arc his legal heirs threatened plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar to dispossess him from the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent instituted C. S. No. 123-A/80 before the IV Civil Judge Class II, Rewa for declaration of title and injunction restraining defendant/appellants from interfering his possession of suit land. 75 acres. Thereafter, defendant Late Ram Nihore and defendant/appellants who arc his legal heirs threatened plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar to dispossess him from the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent instituted C. S. No. 123-A/80 before the IV Civil Judge Class II, Rewa for declaration of title and injunction restraining defendant/appellants from interfering his possession of suit land. The suit has been resisted by the defendant/applicants stating inter alia that Late Ram Pyare @ Pyare and Late Ram Nihore were sons of Late Hirdan from first and second wives respectively, however, they remained joint. Late Ram Pyare was Manager of the joint family and on his death, name of defendant Late Ram Nihore was mutated in the revenue record. The suit land was never sold by Pyare to plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar in the year 1944 for a sum of Rs. 70/ -. Plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar never remained in possession of the suit land. However, he got recorded his name in the revenue Khasra since 1956. Defendant Late Ram Nihore, therefore, filed application before the revenue authority for correction of revenue entries and the application was allowed. The Civil Judge in C. S. No. 123-A/80 vide judgment dated 3-7-89 held that unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) and the receipt of payment (Ex. P-4) since were not proved, the plaintiff/respondent can not be said to be in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, accepting that defendant/appellants remained in possession of the suit land, C. S. No. 123-A/80 for declaration and injunction filed by plaintiff/respondent has been dismissed. ( 4. ) BEING aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondents filed C. A. No. 22-A/82 before the II ADJ, Rewa. The Court below accepted the unregistered sale deed and receipt of payment (Exs. P-3 and P-4), duly executed by Late Pyare and on the basis, plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar was in continuous possession of the suit land. Accordingly, allowing the appeal C. A. No. 22-A/82, the judgment-decree in C. S. No. 123-A/80 passed by Civil Judge, dismissing the suit has been set aside. Instead the suit for declaration and injunction has been decreed. It is contended that the Court below erred in accepting the unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) in evidence to prove the title of the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar and the finding that he remained in possession of the suit land continuously from the date of execution of Ex. P-3 till date is perverse. It is contended that the Court below erred in accepting the unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) in evidence to prove the title of the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar and the finding that he remained in possession of the suit land continuously from the date of execution of Ex. P-3 till date is perverse. It is admitted that Late Pyare was the recorded owner of suit land Khasra No. 1001 area 1. 75 acres, Village Amiliha. As per Khatauni (Ex. P-l), it was separately recorded in his name. Ramadhar (P. W. 1) has stated that the suit land was sold by Late Pyare to him for a sum of Rs. 70/- and an unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) was executed. The receipt of payment of Rs. 70/ (Ex. P-4) was separately executed by him in his favour. Tirath Prasad (P. W. 2) is the scribe of aforesaid documents (Exs. P-3 and P-4 ). This witness has stated that the suit land has been sold by Late Pyare to plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar (P. W. 1 ). Sukhdev Prasad (P. W. 3) is the attesting witness of Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. This witness also has stated that the aforesaid documents were executed by Late Ram Pyare and the suit land has been sold to the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar (P. W. 1 ). Bhamar (P. W. 4) and Surajpal Kotwar (P. W. 5) have stated that Ramadhar (P. W. 1) remained in continuous possession of the suit land since the date of sale by Late Ram Pyare. As against this, Shankar Prasad (D. W. 1), son of Late Ram Nihore, Bharat (D. W. 2), Mathura (D. W. 3), Ramkrishna (D. W. 4) have stated that Late Ram Pyare remained in exclusive possession of the suit land till his death in the year 1953. Thereafter defendant Late Ram Nihore was in its possession. Admittedly, sale deed dated Miti Ashad Wadi 14 Samvat 2001 is corresponding to the year 1944 (Ex. P-3) is an unregistered document. With reference to Sections 1 and 21 of the Rewa Stale Registration Act, 1917, it has been contended that the sale deed (Ex. P-3) was compulsorily required for registration and in the absence of its registration, the title has not been conferred in favour of the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar and this unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) can not be looked into even for collateral purposes. P-3) was compulsorily required for registration and in the absence of its registration, the title has not been conferred in favour of the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar and this unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) can not be looked into even for collateral purposes. In Laxman Prasad v. Yagya Narain, 1980 (I) MPWN 283, it has been held that provisions of Section 21 of the Rewa Registration Act, 1917 are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Therefore, the analogy of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act so as to read the document for collateral purposes can not be applied. Even if the unregistered sale deed (Ex. P-3) has been ignored, the other piece of evidence is receipt of payment of Rs. 70/- (Ex. P-4) duly executed by Late Pyare in favour of plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar. Tirath Prasad (P. W. 2), Sukhdev Prasad (P. W. 3) have clearly stated that on receipt of Rs. 70/- as the consideration of sale of suit land, receipt (Ex. P-4) was executed by Late Ram Pyare. Bhamar (P. W. 4), Surajpal Kotwar (P. W. 5) have stated that from the date of sale aforesaid, Ramadhar (P. W. 1) remained in continuous possession of the suit land. Admittedly, Late Pyare died several years after the execution of unregistered sale deed and receipt (Exs. P-3 and P- 4 ). No Khasra entry has been produced by the defendant/appellants to state that even after the alleged execution of Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4, Late Ram Pyare remained in possession of the suit land. ( 5. ) KHASRA entries (Ex. P-6) from the year 1956-57 to 1960-61 goes to show that Ramadhar (P. W. 1) was in possession of the suit land. His possession was recorded continuously in subsequent years (1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72,1972-73,1973-74) in Khasra entries (Ex. P-7 ). No explanation has been offered by the defendant/appellant to state how the plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar continuously remained in possession of the suit land since the year 1956-57 onwards. Late Ram Nihore for the first time filed application in the year 1970-71 before Naib Tehsildar, Rewa for correction of Khasra entries from 1956-57 onwards. This application of Late Ram Nihore was dismissed vide order dated 3-9-73 vide Ex. P-5. However, the appellate revenue authority allowing the appeal of Late Ram Nihore, vide order dated 30-5-77 (Ex. D-l) directed correction of Khasra entry of the year 1970-71. This application of Late Ram Nihore was dismissed vide order dated 3-9-73 vide Ex. P-5. However, the appellate revenue authority allowing the appeal of Late Ram Nihore, vide order dated 30-5-77 (Ex. D-l) directed correction of Khasra entry of the year 1970-71. In plaint Para 6, the case of the plaintiff/respondent is that on 23-6-74, defendant Late Ram Nihore and appellants threatened him to dispossess from the suit land. Accordingly, on 23-7-74, C. S. No. 123-A/80 has been filed seeking declaration and injunction against defendant/appellants. ( 6. ) THE Court below rightly held that Late Ram Pyare was the recorded owner of the suit land and it remained in its exclusive possession. Late Ram Pyare accepting Rs. 70/- parted away with the possession of the suit land in favour of plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar in the year 1944 Miti Ashad Wadi 14 Samvat 2001. Since then plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar continuously remained in possession of the suit land. In Khasra (Exs. P-6 and P-7), possession of plaintiff/respondent Ramadhar was recorded on the basis of unregistered sale deed of Rs. 70/- by late Ram Pyare. The finding aforesaid recorded by Court below vide impugned judgment dated 3-7-89 in C. A. No. 22-A/82 are neither perverse nor illegal. On the basis aforesaid, the Court below rightly held that plaintiff/respondent is entitled to seek declaration of title and injunction restraining defendant/appellants from interfering in his possession of suit land. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent has rightly been decreed. ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, affirming the judgment-decree passed by II ADJ, Rewa in C. A. No. 22-A/82, appeal fails and is dismissed. Defendant/appellants shall bear their costs and pay the cost of the plaintiff/respondent. Counsel fee as per rule or certificate (whichever is less ).