JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—This defendant’s second appeal arises out of an O.S. No.441 of 1976, for declaration of ownership over the land shown as ‘Aa, Ba, Sa, Da’ in the plaint, and in the alternative for possession and Rs. 200/- as mesne profit. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif, Mirzapur on 13.9.1978. The plaintiffs appeal No.155 of 1978, however, was allowed and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court the suit for recovery of Rs. 200/- as damages and possession over the land in dispute after ejectment of the defendant, was decreed. 2. The second appeal was admitted on 18.8.1980 on substantial question of law as follows : “Whether a title suit, where title is based on a lease deed which is compulsorily registerable under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, the deed can be looked into for a “collateral purpose" for deciding the question with regard to the title of the land?" 3. The Trial Court held that the lease deed for a period of one year was inadmissible in evidence as it was a registered document and that even if for some reasons, it is admissible in evidence, it is not attested by any attesting witness. The document was filed on record after one year of the filing of the suit. The Trial Court accepted the fact that in 1902 Smt. Bhuili and Smt. Bhungi the predecessor of the defendant were evicted but for 27 years the land was not subjected to settlement nor the eviction was carried out. There was no proof that Raja Beni Madhav Prasad had taken possession. The receipts could not be co-related with the land. The defendants were found to be in possession for more than 12 years and thus the suit was also barred by limitation. 4. The appellate Court found that village Domarauli and Baraudha are adjoining villages and Katwaru Ka Pura is a hamlet of village Baraudha. The land in dispute is in plot No. 125/2 of village Domarauli. By two sale deeds Ex. 54A and 55A dated 27.6.1966 executed by Jwala, defendant No. 2 in favour of Shiv Kumar, defendant No. 3 and Garib, (who died during the pendency of the suit), the northern portion of the land was sold in favour of defendant No. 3 and southern to defendant No.4. By two sale deeds Ex. 54A and 55A dated 27.6.1966 executed by Jwala, defendant No. 2 in favour of Shiv Kumar, defendant No. 3 and Garib, (who died during the pendency of the suit), the northern portion of the land was sold in favour of defendant No. 3 and southern to defendant No.4. The area covered in the sale deeds were five dhurs and the boundary tallied with the sketch map given in the plaint. Raja Beni Madhav Prasad Singh, the Zamindar executed a lease deed dated 10.10.1929 in favour of plaintiffs’ father Sukhai in respect of plot No. 125/2 located in village Domarauli. The document was filed 10 days after filing of the written statement, but it cannot be said to be a manufactured document. The lease deed was more than 30 years old. It was proved by Devi Bux Singh, DW-3, who was employed by Raja Saheb since 1927 and had proved the signatures of the Raja on the deed. 5. On the question of admissibility of document on the ground of registration, the appellate Court held that, no doubt the lease deed is unregistered but it can be taken up for collateral purposes for proving possession of Sukhai and his sons. The rent receipts were proved by PW-2 to be in the hand writing of Kamta Prasad, the Ziledar. Chote Lal, PW-1 was recalled and re-examined on 26.2.1980 in the appellate Court vide order dated 30.1.1980. He stated that he had no other land of Raja Saheb except the land in dispute. His testimony was not challenged in the cross-examination. After taking the land in dispute Sukhai fixed up a ‘mandai’. The land was also traceable from the revenue records from 1333 F. to 1372 F. It appears that the house of Bhuili and Bhungi or their husband Shiv Tehal and Pale existed within the land in dispute. The house of Raghunath and defendant No. 2 existed towards east. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not enter the witness box. In the registered gift deed dated 29.4.1960 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 there was a recital that the land is under municipal limits. 6. The house of Raghunath and defendant No. 2 existed towards east. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not enter the witness box. In the registered gift deed dated 29.4.1960 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 there was a recital that the land is under municipal limits. 6. The appellate Court compared the boundaries of the land covered by the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and found that the land worked out to be less than nine Dhurs and is, therefore, not the land in dispute. It further found that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 described the area as one biswa five dhurs, whereas the defendant No. 2 was the donee of less than nine dhurs. The appellate Court further relied upon the statement of defendant No. 3 under Order 10 Rule 2, CPC to the effect that Sumer had constructed the house over the land in dispute. There was no evidence to support the fact. The statement of defendant No.3 under Order 10 Rule 2 regarding his ownership through Bhungi, the previous owner, and then Shiv Tehal was inconsistent with his statement under Order 10 Rule 2, CPC. 7. The appellate Court thus concluded that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land in dispute and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had failed to establish their title. 8. The appellate Court further believed the statement of PW-1 and PW-4 that defendants had taken forcible possession of the land only 2-2 1/2 years ago and found that the suit for possession was within time. The plaintiffs further proved on point No.3 that Lasora tree and Bamboo cluster existed on the land in dispute was planted by the plaintiffs’ father. The defendants did not lead any evidence with regard to the planting of these trees. 9. The suit was thus decreed. 10. Shri L.N. Pandey assisted by Shri S.K. Pandey, learned Counsels for the appellants have relied upon Smt. Sita Maharani and others v. Chhedi Mahto and others, AIR 1955 SC 328 (para 13) and Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust, Agra v. Ram Swarup Jain (dead) by Lrs., (1995) 5 SCC 314 in submitting that where settlement of Raiyati interest was reduced to writing, the ‘Hukumnama’ required registration. Since it was not registered it was inadmissible and no evidence could be given as to its terms and the contents. The document was executed on 5.3.1918 settling Raiyats of village Ratni on the basis of which the plaintiff was in possession for more than 20 years and had acquired occupancy rights in the land in suit. In Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust the Supreme Court held that lease of immovable property under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, from year to year or any term exceeding one year can be made only by registered instrument. Any lease of this kind would be void unless it is created by registered instrument. All other lease may be made either by registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. 11. In the present case, the lease deed (Ex. 2) (Salana), from year to year dated 10.10.1929 executed by Raja Beni Madhav Prasad Singh was proved by Devi Bux Singh, DW-3, an employee of Raja Saheb, who had seen him reading and writing. The document was filed on 19.1.1967. It was more than 30 years old invoking presumption of its execution and attestation under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellate Court relied upon this document for proving possession of Sukhai and his sons. Even if this document is treated to be inadmissible as no lease for a term exceeding one year could be made except by registered instrument, the document proves the possession of the plaintiffs’ ancestors and payment of rent in proof of continuous possession. The land falls in municipal limits. It was further proved from the statement of Chote Lal, PW-1 and Bhaggu, PW-4 that the plaintiffs were dispossessed only about 2-2 1/2 years ago and had taken forcible possession. The defendants could not prove their ownership over the land as their sale deeds did not tally with the area of their predecessor in the gift deed and the boundaries. The plaintiffs as such were entitled to possession. The lease deed as such could be looked into for the purposes of proving the possession. The plaintiff was dispossessed in June 1966 and the suit was filed on 3.10.1966 i.e. within six months of dispossession. The suit, therefore, could be decreed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 12. The plaintiffs as such were entitled to possession. The lease deed as such could be looked into for the purposes of proving the possession. The plaintiff was dispossessed in June 1966 and the suit was filed on 3.10.1966 i.e. within six months of dispossession. The suit, therefore, could be decreed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 12. The substantial questions of law, as such, is returned against the defendant- appellants, and the second appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ———