Judgment Kuldip Singh, J. The plaintiff has come in appeal against the judgment, decree dated 31.03.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Una, in Civil Appeal No. 49/1993 modifying judgment, decree dated 16.02.1993 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, in case No.158/1989. 2. The facts, in brief, are that appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent regarding land described by letters ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint and more specifically described in the plaint. According to appellant, she is owner in possession of shop marked ABCD shown in site plan situated in mauza Amb on the basis of writing dated 27.06.1988. She had paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- to respondent and respondent has no right, title in the suit property. The respondent has threatened to take forcible possession and alienate the same to some other person. In these circumstances, suit was filed for injunction and in alternative for possession. 3. The suit was contested by respondent by filing written statement. The objections of maintainability, locus-standi were taken. The respondent claimed himself owner in possession of the premises in dispute. It has been stated that respondent along with his brothers had purchased super-structure of three shops. The writing dated 27.06.1988 is a forged document. The replication was filed. The stand taken by respondent was controverted and the case projected by the appellant in plaint was reiterated. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the suit property is owned and possessed by the plaintiff in view of the writing dated 27.6.88, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is not proved in affirmative, whether the writing dated 27.6.88 is forged and fabricated? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no (sic)standing to file the suit? OPD. 5. Relief. The issues No.2 to 4 were answered in negative and the suit was decreed on 16.02.1993 by the learned trial Court. The appellant was held in possession of the shop in dispute marked ABCD in the site plan situated on Khasra No. 1059min village Amb. The respondent was restrained to interfere in the possession of the appellant over the shop in dispute. The respondent filed appeal against judgment, decree dated 16.02.1993. The learned District Judge on 31.03.2000 partly allowed the appeal, decree granted by the trial Court was modified. The respondent was restrained to interfere in the possession of the appellant over the shop in dispute. The respondent filed appeal against judgment, decree dated 16.02.1993. The learned District Judge on 31.03.2000 partly allowed the appeal, decree granted by the trial Court was modified. The suit of appellant for permanent injunction restraining respondent from taking forcible possession of the premises in dispute was decreed except in due course of law, hence second appeal which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the oral and documentary evidence has been misread and misconstrued especially the statement of PW-1 Kamlesh Devi, PW-2 Varinder scriber, PW-3 Kashmir Singh, Exhibit PW-2/A writing dated 27.6.1988 and DW-2 Bhuri Singh? 2. Whether the transferor or successor-in-interest is precluded under the provision of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act from taking any advantage on account of non registration of document of transfer, where, the transferee has performed his part of contract and possession given and the transferee can be dispossessed from the property conveyed on the basis of un-registered written document? 3. Whether the un-registered document of conveyance which is subsequently impounded under Section 33 of Stamp Act can be read in evidence for collateral purpose and taken into consideration for adjudication of the lis? 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned District Judge has misconstrued the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and DW-2. He has also misconstrued writing dated 27.06.1988 Ex.PW2/A. A plea of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘Act’) has also been raised. It has been submitted that once the writing dated 27.06.1988 was impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, the same can be read in evidence for collateral purpose for adjudicating the lis. The learned counsel for the appellant has also prayed for allowing C.M.P.No.797 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC and C.M.P.No.909 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment, decree. He has submitted that two Courts below have concurrently held that appellant has no title over the suit property. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment, decree. He has submitted that two Courts below have concurrently held that appellant has no title over the suit property. The respondent has been given liberty by learned District Judge to take possession of the suit property in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no fault in the impugned judgment, decree. Insofar C.M.P. Nos.797 of 2010 and 909 of 2010 are concerned, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that neither appointment of Local Commissioner is necessary nor additional evidence as submitted in C.M.P.No.909 of 2010 is necessary in order to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties. 7. In C.M.P.No.797 of 2010, it has been stated that respondent had filed a suit for possession of shop malafidely marked by him as ERGH and possession of super structure marked by him as ABCDEF, RASD, by way of demolition claiming to be a portion of land comprised in Khasra Nos.1713, 1714 and for recovery, in the alternative for permanent injunction restraining appellant from making further construction over existing super structure. The said suit was partly decreed on 26.06.2008 for possession of premises marked ABCDEF, RSD and EFGH as per site plan. The suit for recovery and injunction has been dismissed. The appeals filed by appellant and respondent against judgment, decree dated 26.06.2008 were decided by lower appellate Court on 10.04.2009. The appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and the appeal filed by respondent herein was allowed for an amount of Rs.28,800/-. The appellant herein has filed second appeal. The site plan filed by the appellant has been exhibited as Ex.P-1, but the relief has been sought with respect to property and land mentioned as ABCD. 8. In RSA No.243 of 2009, the respondent had sought to place on record two site plans which have been exhibited as Ex.PW-2 and Ex. PW-2/A and also shown as Ex.PW-3/A which are not tallying with each other and are in complete contradiction to site plan Ex.P-1. The respondent is trying to confuse the issue and is trying to get the relief much greater than what he is entitled. PW-2/A and also shown as Ex.PW-3/A which are not tallying with each other and are in complete contradiction to site plan Ex.P-1. The respondent is trying to confuse the issue and is trying to get the relief much greater than what he is entitled. In view of contradictory site plans, the submission has been made for appointment of Local Commissioner to investigate, elucidate and give report with respect to land and property of the appellant which appellant had bought from respondent by virtue of writing Ex.PW-2/A dated 27.06.1988 and also to give report with respect to the improvements made by other co-sharers with respect to Khasra No.1059min (old) pertaining to Khasra No.1713,1714 (new). The submission has been made for appointment of appropriate Local Commissioner. The respondent has filed reply and opposed the application. 9. The suit of the appellant has been decreed, the lower appellate Court has modified the judgment, decree of the trial Court but found appellant in possession and restrained respondent by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from taking forcible possession from appellant except in due course of law. In the written statement, the respondent has not taken any objection of identification of the suit property. The Courts below have also not felt any difficulty in identification of the suit property. In the grounds of appeal also there is no ground in respect of any confusion of suit property. The appellant had filed the suit and was the best person to give the particulars of the suit property and appellant has described the suit property in the plaint. 10. The appellant in the application has referred to RSA No.243 of 2009 and has stated that respondent had sought to place on record two site plans which are in contradiction to site plan Ex.P-1. The suit out of which present appeal has arisen and suit out of which RSA No.243 of 2009 has arisen, are separate suits. They were not ordered to be consolidated. The evidence in suit out of which RSA No.243 of 2009 has arisen cannot be read in the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. Incidentally, RSA No.243 of 2009 has also been listed today. The report of the Local Commissioner as suggested on behalf of the appellant is not at all necessary in the present appeal. The evidence in suit out of which RSA No.243 of 2009 has arisen cannot be read in the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. Incidentally, RSA No.243 of 2009 has also been listed today. The report of the Local Commissioner as suggested on behalf of the appellant is not at all necessary in the present appeal. The appellant has failed to make out a case for appointment of Local Commissioner, C.M.P.No.797 of 2010 is dismissed. 11. C.M.P.No.909 of 2010 is for additional evidence for taking on record Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 and for reading the same in evidence for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Annexure A-1 is the site plan prepared at the instance of Mohinder Kumar showing the properties of Kamlesh Devi, Jitender and Mohinder Kumar. Annexure A-2 is the assessment of cost of shops and room of Smt.Kamlesh Devi on Khasra No.1714 valuing Rs.1,77,501.73/-. Annexure A-3 is the site plan prepared at the instance of Mohinder Kumar of construction on Khasra Nos.1713, 1714 and passage to residences on Khasra No. 1715/1. Annexure A-4 is the site plan prepared at the instance of Mohinder Kumar of construction on Khasra Nos.1713, 1714 and passage to residences on Khasra No.1715/1. 12. It has been stated that appellant has placed on record site plan Ex.P-1. The respondent has filed another suit out of which RSA No.243 of 2009 is pending. In that appeal, the respondent has placed on record site plans Ex.PW-2 and Ex.PW-2/A which have also been shown as Ex.PW-3/A those are not tallying with each other and are in contradiction to the site plan Ex.P-1 filed by appellant. It has been stated that case was fixed for compromise. The appellant is seeking to place on record the map of premises in question which has been bought by three brothers namely Surinder Kumar, Jitender Kumar and Mohinder Kumar. 13. According to appellant, the copy of site plan showing three shops purchased by three brothers is Annexure A-1. The copy of expenses incurred for purposes of development and construction of the share purchased by appellant is Annexure A-2. The development made at the back of the shops by Mohinder Kumar is Annexure A-3. The adjacent area next to the disputed area is Annexure A-4. The submission has been made for leading additional evidence to prove Annexures A-1 to A-4. The development made at the back of the shops by Mohinder Kumar is Annexure A-3. The adjacent area next to the disputed area is Annexure A-4. The submission has been made for leading additional evidence to prove Annexures A-1 to A-4. The respondent has filed reply and opposed the application. 14. The appellant had filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The appellant has been found in possession by the Courts below and her suit has been decreed. The appellant has not been found owner of the suit property and for that reason the lower appellate Court has restrained respondent from taking forcible possession of the premises in dispute except in due course of law. The documents by way of Annexures A-1 to A-4 are private documents. The Annexures A-1 to A-4 have not been prepared at the instance of respondent. These documents are not required even by the Court for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The suit out of which RSA No.243 of 2009 has arisen is a separate suit. RSA No.243 of 2009 will be decided as per record of that case. The appellant has failed to bring the case within the forecorners for leading additional evidence,hence,C.M.P.No.909 of 2010 is dismissed. 15. The substantial question of law No.2 is taken first for determination. In the plaint, there is no foundation in support of the plea under Section 53-A of the Act. The plea of Section 53-A of the Act has also not been taken in the lower appellate Court. The plea of part performance is a plea of facts and law. In absence of a factual foundation in the plaint for taking benefit of Section 53-A of the Act, the appellant in second appeal cannot be permitted to raise the issue of protection under Section 53-A of the Act on the basis of writing dated 27.06.1988. In these circumstances, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the point of Section 53-A of the Act in the second appeal. The substantial question of law No.2 is decided against the appellant. 16. The substantial question of law No.1 is taken up for consideration. PW-1 has stated that she has purchased disputed shop from Surinder for a consideration of Rs.4,000/-. She has stated that the shop is on government land. She is owner in possession thereof. She has stated that the writing was scribed on 27.06.1988. 16. The substantial question of law No.1 is taken up for consideration. PW-1 has stated that she has purchased disputed shop from Surinder for a consideration of Rs.4,000/-. She has stated that the shop is on government land. She is owner in possession thereof. She has stated that the writing was scribed on 27.06.1988. PW-2 Varinder Kumar has stated that he has scribed writing Ex. PW-2/A. The writing was written at the instance of Surinder. Kamlesh had paid Rs.4,000/- to Surinder. PW-3 Kashmir Singh has stated that he is an attesting witness of Ex.PW-2/A which was written by Varinder. DW-2 Bhuri Singh has stated that the shop of Surinder was before the year 1988. Thereafter, dispute had arisen. On the spot, the shop is closed. Kamlesh had locked after June, 1988. Ex.PW-2/A is the writing dated 27.06.1988 signed by Kamlesh Sood, Surinder Kumar Sood. Kashmir Singh, Varinder Kumar Sood are witnesses of writing. 17. There is a recital in the writing that Surinder Kumar has sold his shop on 27.06.1988 to Kamlesh Devi for Rs.4,000/-. The statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and DW-2 and Ex.PW-2/A indicate possession of appellant over the shop. In the writing Ex.PW-2/A the sale consideration has been shown Rs.4,000/-. The document is not registered. The sale of immovable property over Rs.100/- requires registration. In absence of registration, title of respondent over property covered by Ex.PW-2/A would not transfer in favour of appellant. The appellant has been found in possession of the suit property. Therefore, it cannot be said that statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and DW-2 and writing Ex.PW-2/A have been misread and misconstrued. The substantial question of law No.1 is decided against the appellant. 18. The substantial question of law No.3 is for consideration of Ex.PW-2/A for collateral purposes. Ex.PW-2/A is unregistered document. It has not been denied on behalf of the appellant that for transferring title of the property covered in Ex. PW-2/A, the document requires registration. In absence of registration, Ex.PW-2/A cannot be read in evidence for transferring title from respondent to appellant of the property in dispute. The impounding of the document without registration does not improve case of appellant so far writing Ex.PW-2/A dated 27.06.1988 is concerned. The possession of appellant on the suit property has been established. The writing Ex.PW-2/A has already been taken into consideration for a limited purpose. The impounding of the document without registration does not improve case of appellant so far writing Ex.PW-2/A dated 27.06.1988 is concerned. The possession of appellant on the suit property has been established. The writing Ex.PW-2/A has already been taken into consideration for a limited purpose. The two Courts below have considered the evidence and held that appellant is in possession of the suit property, but not as owner. The view taken by two Courts below is in consonance with the evidence on record. There is no substance in substantial question of law No.3 which in view of above discussion is decided against the appellant. 19. In view of above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.