JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2008 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Bikaner has been upheld. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed thus : the appellant filed a suit seeking possession and injunction of the suit property, inter-alia, with the averments that she was in possession of the suit property since the year 1969; on 17.6.1981, the property was transferred by Dhannaram-defendant No.1 by way of an agreement to sale, where after she filed a suit against the Railway seeking injunction which suit was decreed in the year 1985; the plaintiff was dispossessed in the year 1988, however, the possession was restored back with the aid of the police; it was then claimed that on 18.10.1988, the plaintiff has again been wrongly dispossessed by the defendants No.2 and 3 Choru Lal and Kedar sons of Dhannaram. It was inter-alia prayed that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and has been wrongly dispossessed and therefore, the possession be restored to her. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant No.2 Choru Lal disputing the averments made in the plaint. It was inter-alia claimed that Dhannaram had no right to transfer the suit property, inasmuch as, the suit property was purchased by him vide an agreement to sale dated 25.3.1974 from one Mooli Devi and ever since he was in possession of the suit property. The averments relating to dispossession etc. were denied. 4. The trial court framed as many as 12 issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself was examined. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2 Choru Lal himself was examined. The parties also produced documentary evidence. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove her possession from the year 1969, her dispossession as alleged by her and also came to the conclusion that the un-registered document i.e. agreement to sale dated 17.6.1981 does not confer any title of the plaintiff and in view of these fundamental findings decided other issues also against the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed first appeal under Section 96 CPC. 6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed first appeal under Section 96 CPC. The first appellate court after hearing the parties reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that if the agreement to sale/sale document executed in favour of the appellant could not be taken into consideration on account of non-registration, the document in favour of the respondent - Choru Lal also suffered from the same defect and therefore, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents duly supported the judgments passed by both the courts below. 9. I have perused the judgments passed by both the courts below along with record of the courts and have considered the rival submissions. 10. It is not in dispute that the documents sought to be claimed as the foundation by both the plaintiff as well as the defendants were unregistered documents, however, once the plaintiff filed the suit based on title and also sought possession of the suit property, it was incumbent on her to prove her title by way of an admissible document. However, as the so-called transfer document dated 17.6.1981 was not registered, the same in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 was clearly inadmissible. 11. Besides the above, the appellant also failed to prove her possession on the suit property, inasmuch as, despite making averments regarding police intervention regarding handing over back the property to her in the year 1988, no document whatsoever was produced in support of the said contention. 12. So far as the grant of decree in her favour against the Railways is concerned, both the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that in absence of either Dhannaram and/or Choru Lal as parties to the said litigation, the said decree was of no consequence. Interestingly, even in the plaint which led to the decree in favour of the plaintiff, she did not make any mention of the transfer document dated 17.6.1981 and therefore, the existence of document itself becomes doubtful. 13. Interestingly, even in the plaint which led to the decree in favour of the plaintiff, she did not make any mention of the transfer document dated 17.6.1981 and therefore, the existence of document itself becomes doubtful. 13. In view of the above discussion and the fact that both the courts below have concurrently found against the appellant, no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this second appeal, consequently, the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******