JUDGMENT AND ORDER : A.K. Goswami, J. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.8.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 60/2006 whereby the appeal was dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 202/2004. 2. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that they are owners of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 3 lechas in Dag No. 648 covered by KP Patta No. 290 situated at village-Kamakhya under Jhalukbari Mouza, details of which is given in schedule to the plaint. The plaintiffs constructed a semi-permanent house facing Chakreswar river. The defendant was known to the family of the plaintiffs for many years and on his request, the plaintiffs allowed him to live in the house constructed as the defendant assured the plaintiffs that he would purchase the house but he was short of money. The defendant made a katcha sale deed and asked the plaintiffs to sign thereon. The plaintiffs stated that they were not agreeable to the amount which the defendant had offered as consideration money on which the plaintiffs were told that the consideration money will be enhanced keeping at par with the market value. The plaintiffs were waiting for the defendant to come forward to execute the sale deed after negotiation of the consideration amount. The plaintiffs never suspected any foul play on the part of the defendant and they would have executed the sale deed on payment of consideration amount as assured. On 26.2.2002, the plaintiffs noticed that the defendant started renovation works in the house and on being enquired, they were told that repairing works were necessary and he was going to purchase the house within a short period. On 26.7.2004, the defendant started doing RCC construction which prompted the plaintiffs to ask the defendant to stop such construction works. In view of such action of the defendant, a suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit premises; for recovery of possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant and persons under him; for permanent injunction; for cost of the suit and for any other relief as the plaintiffs are entitled to. 3. The defendant filed a written statement traversing the plaintiffs' case and also a counter-claim. 3. The defendant filed a written statement traversing the plaintiffs' case and also a counter-claim. He denied that presently the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land, while admitting that the plaintiffs were the erstwhile owners of the land. 4. The defendant's case is that a plot of land was sold to him by the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- by executing a sale deed dated 25.7.1992 and vacant possession of the land was handed over to him. Existence of any semi-permanent structure over the suit land was denied but he admitted that there was a temporary shed made of bamboo and thatch. Accordingly, possession of the land was handed over to the defendant after executing the katcha sale deed promising the defendant to register the sale deed on a later date. However, on one pretext or the other, the plaintiffs did not register the sale deed. After he had paid the full consideration money, the vacant possession of the land was handed over to him. He had completed construction of an RCC house in the year 2000. An Assam type house and garage, however, was completed in the year 2003 and they have been assessed by the Gauhati Municipal Corporation. The defendant being a bona fide purchaser of the land in question for consideration, he has right, title and interest over the land. Accordingly, while praying for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs, he prayed for declaring the defendant as the owner of the land described in the schedule to the written statement/counter-claim; declaring that the plaintiffs are bound to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the land described in the schedule within a specific time-frame and on failure of the plaintiffs to register the sale deed within the time-frame granted by the court, precept be issued for such registration; perpetually restraining the plaintiffs from in any way disturbing with the peaceful occupation of the defendants over the suit land; temporary injunction in terms of the prayer for perpetual injunction; cost of the proceeding and any other relief to which the defendant is entitled to. 5. 5. The schedule to the plaint refers to a plot of land measuring 15 lechas whereas schedule to the counter-claim refers to land measuring 1 katha 3 lechas, while Dag No. and Patta No. are same in both the schedules. 6. The plaintiffs filed reply/written statement against the counter-claim of the defendant. In the reply/written statement it is stated that the katcha deed cannot be termed as sale deed as it did not have the signatures of the parties and the amount of Rs. 15,000/- taken was as advance of the consideration amount on the proposed sale. The assessment was secured by the defendant illegally without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The defendant cannot seek direction for getting registration of katcha deed dated 25.7.1992 which is, in any view of the matter, barred by limitation. The plaintiffs had not controverted the statements made by the defendant that the construction was completed way back in the year 2000. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land? 3. Whether the defendant is a permissive occupier of the plaintiffs over the suit land? 4. Whether the sale deed dated 25.7.1992 by plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 is proper and valid in the eyes of law? 5. Whether the defendant is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land? 6. Whether the defendant has constructed an RCC house over the suit land completed in the year 2000? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed for? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are bound to execute the sale deed? 9. Whether the defendant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?" 8. The learned trial court recorded a finding in issue No. 6 that construction of the RCC house was completed in the year 2000. The sale deed executed on 25.7.1992 was held to be not valid and proper and in view of the discussions in issue Nos. 3 and 4, the issue No. 8 was also decided against the defendant. 9. The learned appellate court examined Ext. A, which was the Katcha sale deed. It was in Non-Judicial Stamp Paper which had no date in any page and the place meant for date was kept blank. 3 and 4, the issue No. 8 was also decided against the defendant. 9. The learned appellate court examined Ext. A, which was the Katcha sale deed. It was in Non-Judicial Stamp Paper which had no date in any page and the place meant for date was kept blank. The learned appellate court concluded that the document cannot be a valid document in the eye of law under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 was also referred to without, however, any reference to the proviso thereto. In substance, issue No. 4 was held to be rightly decided by the learned trial court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 10. This appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 14.6.2008 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether an unregistered sale deed may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of contract under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act? 2. Whether a bona fide purchaser of land, having taken possession of the land after paying full consideration amount can be held to be a permissive occupier merely because the sale deed was not registered?" 11. I have heard Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. Mr. Bhuyan has pointed out that in cross-examination, PW 1 had stated that he had sold the land to the defendant in the year 1995 and not in the year 1992. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW 2 in cross-examination to submit that as far as his knowledge goes, the plaintiffs sold 15 lechas of land to the defendant and not 1 katha 3 lechas. Thus, Mr. Bhuyan submits that there was a sale transaction based on which possession of the property was handed over to the appellant and the learned courts below have recorded a perverse finding that the defendant was a permissive occupier merely because the sale deed was not registered. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & ors. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & ors. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401 to contend that proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits an unregistered document affecting immovable property to be received as evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance and the learned appellate court did not even advert to this aspect of the matter. 13. Mr. S Kataki has submitted that both the courts below have concurrently recorded findings against the appellant and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below. He has asserted that on the basis of Ext. A, no declaration can be granted in favour of the defendant/appellant as the same was not a document on stamp paper and as the same was not registered. He has submitted that factual matrix in S. Kaladevi (supra) was entirely different and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid judgment in the facts of the case. He also submits that the prayer made by the defendant in the counter-claim that the plaintiffs are bound to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the land described in the schedule to the counter-claim is hopelessly barred by limitation and in this connection, he placed reliance in the case of Noharlal Verma Vs. District Co-operative Bank Ltd., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445 . 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 15. The learned trial court while deciding issue No. 3 did not at all discuss the plea set up by the defendant. The appellate court noted that issue No. 3 was assailed in the appeal. However, there was no discussion in the appellate court's judgment with regard to issue No. 3. It is correct that in law, a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. Transfer of immovable property by way of sale, as held by the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2) Through Director Vs. State of Haryana and anr., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 , can only be made by way of deed of conveyance. Transfer of immovable property by way of sale, as held by the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2) Through Director Vs. State of Haryana and anr., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 , can only be made by way of deed of conveyance. In absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title and interest in immovable property can be transferred. Therefore, Issue No. 4 had been rightly decided by both the learned courts below. 16. Issue No. 8 was decided by the learned trial court as follows: "Issue No. 8 Whether the plaintiffs are bound to execute the sale deed? In view of the discussion of issue No. 3 and 4 this issue is decided in negative?" 17. Thus, there was no independent discussion by the learned trial court in respect of issue No. 8 and only because issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided against the defendant, issue No. 8 was decided in the negative. 18. The reasoning of the appellate court is reproduced hereunder: "In the present appeal, the subject matter which was vigorously challenged by the appellant/defendant is that Ext-A, a Katcha Sale Deed in non-judicial stamp paper allegedly executed for the appellant/defendant Shri Ram Prasad Mandal, son of Prem Lal Mandal of Kalipur, Guwahati-9 by the plaintiffs/respondents Shri Jyotish Kalita and Ranjit Kalita showing sale of 1 Katha 3 Lechas of land pertaining to Dag No. 648 of K.P. Patta No. 290 of village Kamakhya, Mouza Jalukbari was shown to have been sold. This document although was allowed to be exhibited as Ext.-A by the learned trial court below, was not accepted to be a document valid in the eye of law by the learned trial court while deciding the issue No. 4 in the judgment under challenge. Upon perusal of said document, i.e. Ext-A which was found in the record of the C-1 file of T.S. No. 202/04, a Photostat copy signed by Shri Jyotish Kalita and Shri Ranjit Kalita is not a registered one allegedly written by one Shri Madhuram Deka and two attesting witnesses namely Shri Bijoy and Shri Kamakhya Prasad having schedule and boundary thereof found not at all dated in any page to it on the foot of the Ext-A before the schedule and boundary, a place meant for date was shown blank. The document Ext-A shown to be a Sale Deed for sale of a land measuring 1 katha 3 lechas for consideration of Rs. 15,000/- between the parties to the suit as well as to the present appeal is not a document registered in any manner and having any date as mentioned above and such a document cannot be a document valid in the eye of law as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines sale for the purpose of immovable property as below: "54 "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Such a transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument." Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with affect of non-registration of documents required to be registered- "No document required by Section 17 (or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) to be registered shall: (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. Such being the law laid down as indicated above pertaining to the matter in issue upon which the present appeal has been preferred, I am of my considered view that the learned trial court below rightly decided the issue No. 4 in proper perspective by rejecting the validity of Ext-A not being a registered one and there is nothing to be interfered in the judgment under challenge by this Court in its appellate capacity. And as such, finding the appeal devoid of merit on the ground stated above, it is dismissed on contest without any cost upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati on 30.6.2006 in Title Suit No. 202/2004. Send down the LCR to the learned Court below with a copy of this judgment for necessary action." 19. In S. Kaladevi (supra), the Apex Court in Para 11 has stated as follows: "11. Send down the LCR to the learned Court below with a copy of this judgment for necessary action." 19. In S. Kaladevi (supra), the Apex Court in Para 11 has stated as follows: "11. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of 1908 Act." 20. The Apex Court also culled out the principles emerging from Section 49 of the Registration Act as under:- (i) A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. (ii) Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. (iii) A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. (iv) A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. (iv) A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. (v) If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. (vi) A document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. 21. In the context of the case, in view of the pleadings, issue No. 8 came to be framed. The courts below did not consider the said issue at all with the result that contention advanced by the defendant did not receive any attention of the courts below. Whether the principle culled out in S. Kaladevi (supra) will attract or govern the instant case will necessarily have to be considered. When none of the courts below had considered this aspect of the matter and issue No. 8 has been left begging for an answer, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate court requires to be interfered with and the matter be remanded to the learned first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 22. As issue No. 3 and issue No. 8 have not been dealt with by the appellate court at all, it cannot be said that there was concurrent finding of fact by both the courts on all the issues as contended by Mr. Kataki. However, submission of Mr. Kataki with regard to the prayer made in the counter-claim that the plaintiffs are bound to execute a registered sale deed being barred by limitation, a plea taken in the reply/written statement to the counter-claim of the defendant, shall have to be considered by the learned first appellate court. As no issue was framed with regard to plea of limitation, the learned first appellate court will frame an issue in this regard and grant opportunity to the parties, limited to the issue, to lead evidence, if they so desire. As no issue was framed with regard to plea of limitation, the learned first appellate court will frame an issue in this regard and grant opportunity to the parties, limited to the issue, to lead evidence, if they so desire. In Noharlal Verma (supra) it is laid down by the Apex Court that limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit or appeal or application is barred by limitation, the court or the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction or authority to entertain such suit or appeal or application and to decide it on merit. 23. It is made clear that apart from the finding recorded by this Court in issue No. 4, no final opinion is given by this Court and observations in this judgment, more particularly in issue Nos. 3 and 8, are made only for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above. 25. The parties will appear before the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup at Guwahati on 1st of June 2015. 26. Registry will send back the records immediately so as to reach the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup at Guwahati well ahead of the date fixed for appearance of the parties.