Judgment ( 1. ) THE unsuccessful defendants feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by two Courts below have filed this second appeal. ( 2. ) THE facts leading to this second appeal lie in a narrow compass. The original plaintiff is Atmaram who died during the pendency of this second appeal and his legal representatives are respondents No. 1 to 4. Munnalal is the original defendant but by amending the plaint other defendants No. 2 to 7 were made party to the suit. ( 3. ) THE suit of plaintiff is that on 15-5-1960 defendant Munnalal sold the suit property which is agricultural land and the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint, to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- which was paid to defendant who also delivered possession to the plaintiff. The sale deed ex. P/1 which was executed, is on stamp paper of Rs. 20/ -. After having delivered possession to the plaintiff, he (plaintiff) was enjoying the suit property as owner and was taking the crops from the suit land and was also paying the land revenue. All of a sudden on 4-10-1966, defendant No. 1 Munnalal illegally took possession of the suit property from plaintiff and hence the present suit has been filed by plaintiff for specific performance of contract praying therein that the document Ex. P/1 be got registered and the possession be delivered to him. Apart from this, he also prayed for mesne profit. ( 4. ) THE defendant No. 1 Munnalal filed written statement and defendants no. 2 and 3 have filed their separate written statement. Defendant No. 6 also filed a separate written statement. However, other defendants did not file any written statement. ( 5. ) THE learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of plaintiff directing defendant No. 1 to get the sale deed registered and in default it was directed that the sale deed would be registered through Court. It was further directed that the possession shall be handed over to the plaintiff. However, Trial Court did not allow the mense profit. ( 6. ) THE defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before learned First Appellate Court which has been dismissed by impugned judgment and decree. In this manner this second appeal has been preferred by defendants/appellants. However, Trial Court did not allow the mense profit. ( 6. ) THE defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before learned First Appellate Court which has been dismissed by impugned judgment and decree. In this manner this second appeal has been preferred by defendants/appellants. ( 7. ) THIS Court on 21-4-1995 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law ; "whether the unregistered sale agreement can be enforced through the process of the Court ?" ( 8. ) THE contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the sale deed ex. P/1 since it is unregistered document cannot be enforced through the process of the Court. According to learned counsel the property was sold by defendant no. 1 Munnalal to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- on 15-6-1966 and since it was a conveyance deed, it requires registration compulsorily in view of section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908 (in short the act ). Thus, according to the learned counsel, the judgment of two Courts below directing the defendants to get the sale deed registered is not in accordance with law. Shri agrawal, learned counsel by inviting my attention to section 23 of the Act contended that if a document which requires registration is not registered from the date of its execution subject to provisions contained in sections 24, 25, 26, the said Act, can be presented for registration before the proper officer within 4 months from the date of its execution. Since the document Ex. P/l is dated 15-5-1960, therefore, it could have been submitted for registration on or before 15th october, 1960 and therefore, in the instant suit, which was filed on 2-3-1968, no decree for the registration of document could be passed. By inviting my attention to section 36 of the said Act, it has been contended by learned counsel under this section a complete procedure has been given to get the document registered if the executant fails to apply for its registration. The plaintiff did not adopt this statutory procedure, therefore, according to learned counsel the two Courts below erred in substantial error of law in directing defendant No. 1 Munnalal to get the sale deed registered. ( 9. The plaintiff did not adopt this statutory procedure, therefore, according to learned counsel the two Courts below erred in substantial error of law in directing defendant No. 1 Munnalal to get the sale deed registered. ( 9. ) ON the other hand Miss Surbhi Nigam learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued in support of the impugned judgment passed by learned two Courts below. She has also submitted that even if the document is not considered to be a document of agreement of sale and the same is taken to be out and out sale, but, for collateral purpose, in order to ascertain the possession of the plaintiff this document can be seen and is admissible in evidence. Thus by placing reliance on proviso to section 49 of the said Act she has invited my attention to the contents of document Ex. P/1, and argued that the factum of delivery of possession has been embodied in this document and therefore it would be deemed that defendant No. 1 Munnalal delivered the possession to plaintiff Atmaram. If, subsequently on 4-10-1966 defendant Atmaram has dispossessed plaintiff, certainly he can file suit for restoration of possession. ( 10. ) REGARDING substantial question of law : the learned First Appellate Court by placing reliance on the decision of Single Bench Tulsiram vs. Sampatbai, 1980 (2) MPWN Note 148 has come to the conclusion that the suit which was filed on the basis of an unregistered sale-deed seeking relief to get it registered would be deemed to be a suit for specific performance of contract under section 10 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and hence the Appellate Court affirmed the decree of the Trial Court directing defendant No. 1 Munnalal to get the sale-deed executed and registered in favour of plaintiff. In my view the said decision is not applicable in the present factual scenario because in the recital of document of Tulsirams case (supra), there was a clause that a sale-deed would be executed by the vendor later at the expenses of vendee. In the present case there is no such clause in document Ex. P/1. Since in case of Tulsiram (supra) there was a clause in the document that a sale deed would be executed later on at the expenses of the vendee, the recital would itself make the document as agreement of sale and not a document of sale. In the present case there is no such clause in document Ex. P/1. Since in case of Tulsiram (supra) there was a clause in the document that a sale deed would be executed later on at the expenses of the vendee, the recital would itself make the document as agreement of sale and not a document of sale. On going through the document Ex. P/1, I am of the view that the transaction between the parties is a complete sale as envisaged under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. I have also examined minutely the document Ex. P1 and after giving my anxious and bestowed consideration to this document, it cannot be said that it is any other document except a deed of sale. It has been mentioned in recital of this document that in the partition the suit property fell in the share of vendor Munnalal and he is possessing the same. Since he is in need of money, therefore, for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- he has sold this land to Atmaram (plaintiff ). Further it has been mentioned that the entire consideration of Rs. 2000/- has been received by him and he has also delivered possession of the sold property to Atmaram (plaintiff ). Learned counsel for the parties did not dispute and it is also not a case of either party that the vendor and vendee were not competent to contract at the time of entering into the contract. ( 11. ) THERE are three requisites to complete a transfer by sale :- (i) one person must agree to transfer his ownership to another person and that other person must agree to accept such a transfer; (ii) a price must be paid or agreed to be paid by the latter to the former; and (iii) both persons must be competent to contract. In my view the requirements, namely, the registration, etc. are procedural but the substantive part of the sale was already effected between the two parties. In this context I may profitably place reliance on the decision of this Court sayyad Ibne Hasan vs. Mehtab, 1960 MPLJ 879 = 1960 JLJ 222 . Though the transfer of the property by vendor (Munnalal) in favour of vendee (Atmaram) is a complete sale, but, unless and until it is registered under section 17 of the Act, there cannot be any valid conveyance. ( 12. Though the transfer of the property by vendor (Munnalal) in favour of vendee (Atmaram) is a complete sale, but, unless and until it is registered under section 17 of the Act, there cannot be any valid conveyance. ( 12. ) THE question which now hinges is that whether in absence of registration of the document of sale deed Ex. P/1 the suit of plaintiff should be dismissed in toto or whether he is entitled to a decree of possession. In this regard i may place reliance on section 49 of the said Act and the proviso to this section. Admittedly, the factum of delivery of possession has been embodied in the recital of the unregistered sale deed Ex. P/1. Thus, for all practical purpose in order to ascertain the possession of plaintiff this document can be read in evidence I may place reliance on Single Bench decision of this Court Thepali vs. Daddi and others, 1999 RN 407. The Supreme Court in Padma Vithoba Chakkayya vs. Mohd. Multani and another, AIR 1963 SC 70 has held in para 8 that the endorsement of cancellation on the back of the sale deed in favour of the vendor is inadmissible in evidence as it is not registered. The Supreme Court further held that such an endorsement would not be a retransfer of title. But, the endorsement can be taken and is admissible in evidence to show the character of possession. The Full Bench of this Court in Amar Singh and another vs. Surinder Kaur, 1975 mplj 633 - 1975 JLJ 667 has held that section 49 of the Registration Act does not say that an unregistered document which requires to be registered shall not be received in evidence. The only bar is that such a document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. The Full Bench further held that proviso to section 49 clearly empowers the Courts to admit any unregistered document as evidence of collateral transaction not required to be registered. The same view was also taken earlier by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhaskar narayan Deshmukh vs. Mohammad Alimullakhan Mohammad Nurulla Khan, 1953 NLJ 199 = AIR 1953 Nagpur 40. ( 13. The same view was also taken earlier by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhaskar narayan Deshmukh vs. Mohammad Alimullakhan Mohammad Nurulla Khan, 1953 NLJ 199 = AIR 1953 Nagpur 40. ( 13. ) THE two Courts below after appreciating and marshalling the evidence arrived at a pure finding of fact that plaintiff Atmaram obtained possession by virtue of this document and he was in possession of suit property for near about 6 years but was dispossessed on 4-10-1966 by defendant Munnalal. Since munnalal illegally dispossessed the plaintiff, I am of the view that by taking law in its own hand he cannot take possession from the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of restoration of possession of suit property. ( 14. ) ARTICLE 64 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Act of 1963) throws sufficient light to bring a suit for possession. According to this article, a suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title can be brought by plaintiff within 12 years from the date of dispossession. On going through the objects and reasons to introduce this article it is clear that this article has replaced Article 142 of old Act and has been introduced to bring the suit on the basis of possessory title. In a case falling under this article, the plaintiff must at the outset show that he had been in possession within 12 years before suit, however he is not at all bound to prove his title. The only requirement is that he has to prove his previous possession and is further required to prove that while he was in possession he has been dispossessed by defendants. ( 15. ) THE matter would have been different if defendant by adopting due procedure under the law would have taken the possession from plaintiff. The law will not permit any illegal action of taking possession forcibly. At this juncture learned counsel for appellant by placing reliance on the commentary of Mullas transfer of Property Act, section 54 Note 23 has contended that if the deed is not registered, there is no transfer and property does not pass to the vendee. The law will not permit any illegal action of taking possession forcibly. At this juncture learned counsel for appellant by placing reliance on the commentary of Mullas transfer of Property Act, section 54 Note 23 has contended that if the deed is not registered, there is no transfer and property does not pass to the vendee. According to learned counsel mere delivery of the deed will not operate as delivery of the property nor will a recital in the sale deed of delivery of possession would suffice, for such a recital might be inserted without any attempt at fulfilment. Further it is argued by Shri Agrawal, learned counsel that 12 years possession under an unregistered sale deed may create title by adverse possession but since plaintiff has not perfected his title by way of adverse possession therefore he cannot ask for the relief of possession of the suit property and plaintiff will be only a trespasser. I do not agree with this proposition of learned counsel for the appellants. By taking law in his own hands if the defendant has taken possession of the suit property from the plaintiff, he is legally bound to deliver the possession back to him, if the suit for possession is decreed. It is well settled in law that a trespasser can sue even against the real owner restraining interference from his possession and in that context I may profitably rely on the decision of Division Bench of this Court Gajendra Singh vs. Mansingh, 2000 (2)MPLJ 316 . If such suit of injunction can be filed by a trespasser against the real owner certainly he can also file a suit for restoration of possession on the basis of his previous possession as envisaged under Article 64 of the Act. ( 16. ) THE substantial question of law is thus answered that the unregistered sale agreement can be enforced through the process of Court but in the present case document Ex. P/1 is not a sale agreement, but is an unregistered sale deed. ( 17. ) RESULTANTLY this appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and decree passed by two Courts below so far as they relates directing defendant munnalal to get the sale deed registered is hereby set aside. The decree of two courts below restoring possession to plaintiff is hereby affirmed. The plaintiffs are free to execute the decree of restoration of possession. ) RESULTANTLY this appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and decree passed by two Courts below so far as they relates directing defendant munnalal to get the sale deed registered is hereby set aside. The decree of two courts below restoring possession to plaintiff is hereby affirmed. The plaintiffs are free to execute the decree of restoration of possession. ( 18. ) LOOKING to facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.