JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the plaintiffs before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereupon, it concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiffs/appellants herein is driven to institute the instant appeal here-before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the defendant. It has been averred that the suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 53, 79, 80 and 97, measuring 24-9 bighas is in possession of the plaintiff as per the agreement executed in between the parties. It has been further averred that the defendant, who is of the age of 70 years was in need of money and he approached the plaintiff to give him a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as loan which was given by the plaintiff and defendant gave possession of the suit land to the plaintiff for its cultivation and maintenance. It was alleged that an agreement was executed in between the parties on 19.03.1993 which was signed by plaintiff and thumb marked by defendant in presence of witnesses and was also attested by the Notary. It was alleged that the plaintiff was to remain in possession till the amount was repaid and as the defendant is threatening to take possession of the suit land from the plaintiff, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter-alia maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the plaintiff is the real son-in-law of the defendant. Defendant had accompanied the plaintiff to execute a Will at Bilaspur which was got prepared by the plaintiff and believing the document as a Will, he thumb marked the same in good faith and in case any agreement has been got executed by the plaintiff, it is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. He also pleaded that he never took any loan of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff nor gave the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. 4. He also pleaded that he never took any loan of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff nor gave the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not valued properly, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction? OPP 6. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/appellants before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the plaintiffs/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are adverse to oral as well as documentary evidence available on record? 2. Whether the learned Courts below have misconstrued and mis-appreciated the Ext. PA i.e. the agreement arrived at between the parties on 19.3.1993? Substantial questions of Law No. 1 and 2: 7. Dehors the factum of evidence adduced in respect of Ex. PA being proven to be validly or not validly executed by the defendant, the prime reason which rips apart its vigour, is comprised in the factum of its closest circumspect reading making a disclosure that in lieu of a sum of Rs. 70,000/- the defendant creating a mortgage with possession in respect of the suit land upon the plaintiff. Consequently, Ex.PA as enshrined by the mandate of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, was hence compulsorily registrable, conspicuously when thereunder a contingent interest stood created in the suit property in a mortage sum of Rs. 70,000/- the defendant creating a mortgage with possession in respect of the suit land upon the plaintiff. Consequently, Ex.PA as enshrined by the mandate of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, was hence compulsorily registrable, conspicuously when thereunder a contingent interest stood created in the suit property in a mortage sum of Rs. 70,000/- relevant provisions thereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “Section 17 - Indian Registration Act, 1908 (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the properties to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, of the Indian Registration Act 1866, or the Indian Registration Act 1871, or the Indian Registration Act 1877, or the this Act came or comes into force, namely:- (a) instruments of gift of immoveable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; (d) leases of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; (e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immoveable property (Added by Act No. 21 of 1929); PROVIDED that the State Government may, by order published in Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any leases executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rent reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.” Whereas with Ex.PA being evidently not registered, no leverage can be derived therefrom by the plaintiff to contend that, thereupon, any legally enforceable right in respect of the suit land standing bestowed upon him. 8. 8. With this Court holding that Ex.PA being in respect of the suit land hence not enforceable by the plaintiff, the plaintiff may yet succeed to secure a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the suit land being pronounced upon the defendant, if formidable evidence stood adduced by the plaintiff in respect of his holding possession of the suit land. However, the best documentary evidence in respect of the defendant or the plaintiff holding possession of the suit land, is comprised only in the relevant revenue records prepared in respect of the suit land, yet with Ex. PD, exhibit whereof is a jamabandi in respect of the suit land appertaining to the year 1991-92 besides with Ex.PE, which is a copy of khasra girdawaris in respect of the suit land appertaining to the year 1993 to 1996, both making displays therein of the defendant holding possession of the suit land also with the plaintiff not adducing evidence for rebutting the presumption of truth enjoyed by the aforesaid reflections occurring in the aforesaid exhibits, thereupon, the reflections occurring therein in respect of the defendant holding possession of the suit land hence hold conclusivity. Corollary whereof is that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction being pronounced in respect of the suit land upon the defendant. 9. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court being based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants/respondents and against the plaintiffs/appellants. 10. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.