JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-8-2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2003 whereby the suit of respondent-plaintiff under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been decreed, the defendant-applicant has come up in this revision under section 1 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this revision application. Suffice it to say that a suit for possession by taking aid of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the Act of 1963) has been filed by the plaintiff in respect to the open land which is the subject-matter of the suit and the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint. According to the plaintiff he was in possession of the property but the defendant-applicant by taking the law in his own hands has dispossessed him. The date of dispossession is 13-9-1996 and the suit has been filed within six months since it was filed on 13-12-1996. In the plaint it has been pleaded that because plaintiff has been illegally dispossessed, the possession be restored to him. 3. Defendant-applicant has refuted the plaint averments by filing written-statement and specifically pleaded that plaintiff was an encroacher and he encroached upon the suit land which is owned by the State Govt. and, therefore, possession cannot be restored to him. It has also been pleaded by him that the property in question was sold to him for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/- and the possession was also delivered to him on 2-9-1996 in pursuance to the said sale deed hence according to the stand taken by the defendant he is the title holder and the suit cannot be decreed. 4. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit directing defendant to deliver possession to the plaintiff. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by the defendant-applicant. 5. The contention of Shri Bhave, learned senior counsel is that defendant cannot be said to be an encroacher because on the basis of the sale deed the property in question has been conveyed to him and hence learned trial Court has erred in law in decreeing the suit. 6. Considered this submission. 7. 5. The contention of Shri Bhave, learned senior counsel is that defendant cannot be said to be an encroacher because on the basis of the sale deed the property in question has been conveyed to him and hence learned trial Court has erred in law in decreeing the suit. 6. Considered this submission. 7. On bare perusal of the impugned judgment this Court finds that defendant was an encroacher upon the Govt. land and he was fined with a penalty of Rs. 250/- and in that regard document Ex. P/2 is on record. On the basis of the revenue record of the year 1995-96 the land in question is found to be owned by the State Govt. upon which the plaintiff has been shown to be an encroacher. To me, merely because plaintiff is an encroacher, the defendant by taking law in his own hands cannot dispossess him and if he has dispossessed him certainly he is legally bound to deliver the possession. This Court in Pannalal Bhagirath Marwadi vs. Bhaiyalal Bimdraban Pardeshi Teli, AIR 1937 Nagpur 281 has held that section 9 of the Specific Relief Act of 1877 (which is equivalent to section 6 of the present Act of 1963) the plaintiff can bring a suit for possession under this provision. This Court in the same judgment has further held that one who entered into peaceful possession though having no legal title can defend his title against one who forcibly ousted him. If the decision of this Court in Pannalal (supra) is tested on the touchstone and anvil of the present factual scenario it would reveal that the plaintiff who has entered into a peaceful possession and whose possession has also been found in the revenue record though he may be an encroacher and having no title over the suit property, can sue the defendant who has forcibly ousted him. The view which was taken up by this Court long back near about 83 years ago was affirmed by the Apex Court in M. Kallappa Setty vs. M. V. Lakshminarayana Rao, AIR 1972 SC 2299 in which the same principle has been reiterated that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the strength of his possession can resist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession. 8. 8. The decision of Supreme Court M. K. Setty (supra) can be applied in the present case in the manner that if the plaintiff would have in possession of the suit property and if would have filed a suit for injunction timely restraining the defendant not to interfere in his possession, certainly he was entitled for that relief, but, merely because he has been ousted by the defendant by taking law in his own hands it cannot be said that his right has been ruined or buried. 9. So far as the plea of defendant that he is the owner of the suit property on account of sale deed is concerned, rightly the learned trial Court did not permit to exhibit the document of sale because it is not a registered document and has not been properly written on the stamp paper although in this document passing a consideration of Rs. 45,000/- has been mentioned and in the document it has been stated that it has been sold to the defendant. According to me, under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless and until an immovable property having valuation of Rs. 100/- or more is conveyed by a registered document there cannot be a valid conveyance of sale and therefore, according to me the defendant cannot be said to be a valid title-holder. 10. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff and I do not want to deviate from those reasonings since they are based upon correct appreciation of law and are pure findings of fact which cannot be interfered in this revision application. 11. Resultantly, this revision application is hereby dismissed. However, time to vacate the suit property is granted to defendant-applicant on the condition that if he submits an undertaking to vacate the suit property on or before 28-2-2014 and he will handover peaceful possession to the plaintiff, he may remain in possession upto that date. But, the defendant shall deposit the cost of the suit as awarded by learned trial Court in the Court below. Let the undertaking and the cost be deposited on or before 30-4-2013, failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to file execution application even earlier to 28-2-2014. The plaintiff-respondent shall be free to withdraw the amount of cost. But, the defendant shall deposit the cost of the suit as awarded by learned trial Court in the Court below. Let the undertaking and the cost be deposited on or before 30-4-2013, failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to file execution application even earlier to 28-2-2014. The plaintiff-respondent shall be free to withdraw the amount of cost. Since nobody is appearing for the respondent-plaintiff in this revision, therefore, the cost of this revision shall be borne by the parties. Revision dismissed.