JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgments and decrees concurrently passed by the Courts below, has filed the instant appeal. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction with consequential relief of possession by way of mandatory injunction, on the allegation that he alongwith other co-sharers is the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.10 min, Khatauni No.12, Khasra No.169 measuring 0K-10M as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03, situate in Mahal Daruhan Brahmana, Mouza Mehalta, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. as non-occupancy tenant by virtue of exchange with Khasra No.289 as described in column of rent. It was averred that the defendant, even though has no concern with the suit land and was unnecessarily and forcibly interfering in such possession, therefore, be restrained by a decree of prohibitory injunction and in case the defendant succeeds in taking forcible possession of the suit land, then a decree of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein preliminary objections qua cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppel etc. were raised. On merits, it was asserted that the suit land has been sold to the husband defendant vide agreement dated 09.07.2002, for consideration of Rs.20,000/- and even the possession of the same had been handed over on the same day. The sale deed could not be made, as the vendor was recorded as non-occupancy tenant and accordingly dismissal of the suit was sought for. 5. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 03.08.2010, framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the suit land, destroying the crops etc. as alleged? OPP 2. In alternative, if during the pendency of the suit defendant succeeds in taking forcibly possession of the suit land then whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of vacant possession as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff vide agreement dated 9.07.2002 has sold the suit land to the husband of defendant for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- and delivered the possession as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 5. OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff vide agreement dated 9.07.2002 has sold the suit land to the husband of defendant for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- and delivered the possession as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit in view of the compromise dated 6.09.2009 in the Panchayat as alleged? OPD 6. Relief." 6. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and appeal preferred against the same was dismissed, constraining the defendant to file the instant appeal. The defendant had also filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. 7. It is vehemently argued by Shri Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures without there being any legal application of mind and, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside. Whereas, on the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the findings being in consonance with law, warrant no interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. 9. Adverting to the oral evidence, led by the parties, it was noticed that the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, who stated on oath that he is owner in possession of the land and cowshed and had also planted vegetables on the suit land. In the month of September of the previous year, defendant had uprooted the boundary and destroyed his vegetables grown on the suit land. Defendant had also abused him and he reported the matter to the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to which, officials of the Gram Panchayat, visited the spot and directed the defendant to pay the loss caused to the plaintiff. Since the defendant did not relent from interfering in the suit land, he was therefore, constrained to file the instant suit. 10. Chattar Singh (PW.2) produced the record of Gram Panchayat Kharwar. 11. Jamna Devi (PW.3), Pradhan Gram Panchayat, proved on record report (Ex.PW.3/A) and also identified the signatures of Ward Panch Bimla Devi. She also identified signatures over the orders dated 14.10.2009, copies of which are Ex.PW.3/B and Ex.PW.3/C respectively. 12. 10. Chattar Singh (PW.2) produced the record of Gram Panchayat Kharwar. 11. Jamna Devi (PW.3), Pradhan Gram Panchayat, proved on record report (Ex.PW.3/A) and also identified the signatures of Ward Panch Bimla Devi. She also identified signatures over the orders dated 14.10.2009, copies of which are Ex.PW.3/B and Ex.PW.3/C respectively. 12. On the other hand, defendant herself examined as DW-1 and stated on oath that the suit land measuring 10 marlas, which includes a cowshed, was purchased by her husband vide agreement dated 09.07.2002 from Ram Parshad son of Khayali Ram. The agreement was written by Up-Pradhan Jagdish Sharma and witnessed by Karam Chand and Parmanand. According to this witness, her husband had purchased the land under the ownership of Ram Parshad and suit land was also given to them on the basis of agreement, so executed as this land had come to the share of Ram Parshad by way of Khangi Baant. 13. Jagdish Chand (DW.2) deposed that agreement (Ex.DW.2/A) was written by him which bears his signatures. Vide this sale agreement, Ram Parshad sold the suit land in favour of Suresh Chand for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- in presence of the witnesses and possession was also delivered. 14. Ram Parshad (DW.3) deposed that the suit land was sold by him to Suresh by way of an agreement for consideration of Rs.20,000/-. The witnesses were Parmanand and Karam Chand. On the same day, he has also sold another piece of land measuring 15 marlas by way of sale deed to Suresh Chand and possession was also delivered on the same day. 15. Plaintiff, in rebuttal, examined Madan Lal (PW.4), who stated that he had remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kharwar from the year, 2001 till date. The disputed land had been seen by him. There was a cowshed of the plaintiff over the suit land alongwith some cultivated land and defendant had forcibly tried to put lock over the cowshed. He had prepared the report (Ex.PW.3/B) as Up-Pradhan and photographs of the spot were exhibited as Ex.PW.4/A and Ex.PW.4/B respectively. 16. Now adverting to the documentary evidence, both the parties have produced on record copy of revenue record as Ex.D1 and Ex.P1 respectively, which shows that the plaintiff is recorded as Gair Marushi tenant with respect to the suit land alongwith other co-sharer. 16. Now adverting to the documentary evidence, both the parties have produced on record copy of revenue record as Ex.D1 and Ex.P1 respectively, which shows that the plaintiff is recorded as Gair Marushi tenant with respect to the suit land alongwith other co-sharer. The land is described as Gair Mumkin Gohar and shown in possession of the plaintiff alongwith other co-sharers. Evidently, the only plea stated above by the defendant to claim possession and ownership of the land, in question, is based upon the agreement to sell dated 09.07.2002, whereby she has claimed that the suit land was sold in favour of her husband for sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- by Ram Parshad, one of the co-owners. 17. The moot question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the agreement, in fact, has any evidentiary value. For this purpose, it would be relevant to take note of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which read thus:- "17. 17. The moot question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the agreement, in fact, has any evidentiary value. For this purpose, it would be relevant to take note of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which read thus:- "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.-(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property 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, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:- (a) instruments of gift of immovable 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; and (d) leases of immovable 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 immovable property:] Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees. [(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.] (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to- (i) any composition deed; or (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or (v) [any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or (vi) any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings; or (vii) any grant of immovable property by Government; or (viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue -Officer; or (ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or (xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, (6 of 1890) vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer. 49. Effect 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: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument." 18. Section 17 of the Act is a disabling Section. The documents defined in clauses (a) to (e) therein require registration compulsorily. Accordingly, sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and more required compulsory registration. Part X of the Act deals with the effects of registration and non-registration. Registration and non registration of the document in main provision of 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. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of the proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- or more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of 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. 19. 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. 19. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, is inadmissible as evidence of transaction affecting immovable property, but it may be used as an evidence to the contract or as evidence of any collateral purpose i.e. for any other purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing right over the immovable property. 20. In K.B. Saha and sons Private Limited vs. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, culled out the following principles:- "34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that: 1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2. 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. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. 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. 5. 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." 21. The plaintiff all through maintained that he has always remained in possession of the suit land and such submission is duly corroborated and supported by the revenue record. 22. On the other hand, defendant has failed to prove on record her possession over the suit land as there is no evidence led by her to prove that the possession of the suit land was delivered to her either by Ram Parshad initially in favour of Suresh Chand-late husband. 22. On the other hand, defendant has failed to prove on record her possession over the suit land as there is no evidence led by her to prove that the possession of the suit land was delivered to her either by Ram Parshad initially in favour of Suresh Chand-late husband. Plaintiff is duly recorded as one of the co-sharers qua the suit land and is shown to be in physical possession. Law is otherwise settled that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be possession of all the co-sharers. 23. The findings returned by the Courts below are pure finding of fact and are therefore, in no way, warrant interference by this Court in Second Appeal. 24. Having said so, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the appeal raises no question of law much less substantial question of law. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal, as such, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear at their own costs.