JUDGMENT : V.K. Birla, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant and perused the record. 2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Amroha in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2018 by which appeal filed by the defendant-appellant, arising out of judgment and decree dated 25.8.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amroha decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, was dismissed. 3. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against' the defendant-appellant on the ground that they are the owners of the property in question on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 13.9.1971 executed in favour of their father and the defendant-appellant is trying to dispossess them. The defendant-appellant came out with a case that half of the property was sold by father of the plaintiffs-respondents to the father of the defendant-appellant and a receipt dated 6.12.1971 was executed. It was asserted that the possession was handed over to the defendant-appellant and he is in possession over the property in question. The registered sale deed dated 13.9.1971 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendant-appellant filed the receipt dated 6.12.1971, for a sum of Rs. 520/- which is also on record as paper No. 22-Ga. The boundaries of the property have been shown in the receipt. The Trial Court allowed the suit for injunction on the ground that the receipt does not confer any right or title to the defendant and he has also failed to prove the possession. It was asserted that the documentary evidence in respect of the possession i.e., photographs and other receipts etc. could not prove that the same are in respect of the property in question as it was admitted by-the-defendant that he has several properties in the village and the electricity bill and other connection receipts etc. could not establish their possession over the property in question or that they are in respect of the property in question, It was also found that the defendant is alleging the transfer of the immovable property, however, alleged receipt dated 6.12.1971, which is being claimed to be a sale-deed, is not registered as required under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, the same is not a valid document in law regarding transfer of immovable property for consideration. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. 4. Challenging the impugned judgment submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the defendant-appellant is in possession over the property in question since 6.12.1971 and he has been residing there since then. He further submits that the Courts below have committed gross mistake of law in rejecting and discarding receipt the paper No. 22-Ga-dated 6.12.1971) which was about 30 years old. The possession over the property in question has been duly proved. Submission is that the findings recorded by the Courts below are wholly perverse in nature. Attention was also drawn to the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal. In support of the arguments the provisions of sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and section 53-A of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 were also referred to. Submission is that even if the document/receipt dated 6.12.1971 is not a registered document, still in view of the provisions of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the same can be looked into as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. He submits that the defendant-appellant is in possession since 6.12.1971 and his possession cannot be disturbed by the plaintiffs-respondents and the said document is binding on the parties. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. District Judge and others, AIR 1997 SC 51 (paragraph 6). He further submits that issue regarding possession of the defendant-appellant should-have been framed and thus, the matter is liable to be remanded back for framing such issue and deciding the same on merits. In support of this argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Sada Ram Ganga Pd. v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Alld 246. 5. In support of this argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Sada Ram Ganga Pd. v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Alld 246. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant and perused the record as well as the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal, which are quoted as under: "(A) Whether a suit of injunction can be decreed in the events the plaintiff, has failed to prove and establish averments regarding his possession and ownership over" land in dispute made in plaint and Courts below have committed illegality in decreeing the suit. (B) Whether plaintiff who has not come with clean hands in filing injunction suit against defendant, miserable failing in establishing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the decree of injunction passed by Courts below is sustainable in the eyes of law. (C) Whether section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908 completely prohibits reliance on unregistered document as has been observed by Court below and the decree passed in consequence is sustainable. (D) Whether the defendant appellant's possession for about 30 years over land in dispute, which has been duly proved and established can be ignored in passing decree of injunction against him. (E) Whether the decree passed by Courts below based on misreading and misinterpreting of evidence placed on record is sustainable in the eyes of law. (F) Whether the burden of proving plaintiff case having been wrongly shifted on defendant and decree passed thereafter is liable to be sustained. (G) Whether the suit of injunction preferred after 30 years is barred by limitation and decree passed is liable to be sustained." 6. That apart, learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that one more substantial question of law arises in the present case is as to whether the possession of the defendant-appellant can be disturbed in view of provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Properly Act, 1882? 7. In the present case, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 13.9.1971 executed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs-respondents is not in dispute. The case of the defendant-appellant is that he is owner in possession on the basis of the receipt dated 6.12.1971 paper No. 22-Ga. 7. In the present case, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 13.9.1971 executed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs-respondents is not in dispute. The case of the defendant-appellant is that he is owner in possession on the basis of the receipt dated 6.12.1971 paper No. 22-Ga. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that by registered sale-deed, which is more than 30 years old, the plaintiffs-respondents are the owners in possession; The defendant-appellant claims that half of the property as per boundaries shown in the receipt dated 6.12.1971 was sold by Rampal Singh, Nathhu Singh and Hari Singh S/o. Bannu Singh, father of the plaintiffs-respondents to Shiv Nath Singh, father of the defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 520/-. Thus, according to him, the receipt dated 6.12.1971 is, in fact, a sale-deed though unregistered, by which specific property was sold for consideration. 8. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to take note of certain provisions of law. 9. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is quoted as under: "53-A. Part performance.--Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part, performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof." (Emphasis supplied) 10. Section 49 of the Registration Act is quoted as under: "49. Section 49 of the Registration Act is quoted as under: "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]" (Emphasis supplied) 11. State Amendment (Uttar Pradesh) of the Registration Act, 1908 is also quoted as under: (i) in the first paragraph, after the words "or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882", insert the words "or of any other law for the time being in force." (ii) for Clause (b), substitute the following clause, namely "(b) confer any power or create any right or relationship, or"; (iii) in Clause (c), after the words "such power", insert the words "or creating such right or relationship"; (iv) in the proviso, omit the words "as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or". (vide Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, section 34 (w.e.f. 1.1.1977). (Emphasis supplied) 12. It would be relevant to note that the words "or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882" were added by Act 21 of 1929 (section 10). 13. It would be pertinent to note that the words, "or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882" were omitted by Act 48 of 2001 section 6 (w.e.f. 24.9.2001). 14. It is not in dispute that this receipt is not a registered document. Undisputedly, the defendant-appellant is claiming that this is in fact a sale-deed although not registered. It is also not in dispute that this receipt is for a sum of Rs. 14. It is not in dispute that this receipt is not a registered document. Undisputedly, the defendant-appellant is claiming that this is in fact a sale-deed although not registered. It is also not in dispute that this receipt is for a sum of Rs. 520/- and is allegedly for a sale of immovable property worth above Rs. 100/-. In case it is a receipt for transaction towards sale of immovable property, the document was required to be registered under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 15. Thus, clearly, reference to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 is of no help to the defendant-appellant. 16. Insofar as section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is concerned, it clearly provides that where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof. 17. It would be appropriate to note the contents of receipt dated 6.12.1972, which are quoted as under: eS fd vkt crkjh[k 6 fnlacj 1972 bZ dks jkeiky flag o uRFkw flag o gjh flag iq= cUuw flag dkSe pkSgku is'kk [ksrh xzke xtkuk ijxuk vejksgk ftyk eqjknkckn us cnLr f'koukFk flag iq= txr flag dkSe pkSgku is'kk [ksrh xzke xtkuk ds gkFk 520 ikap lkS chl ftlds vk/ks nks lkS lkB 260@& :Œ gksrs gS udn :Œ olwy ikdj ;g jlhn fVdV pLik fy[k nh fdoŸkk ij dke vkos vkSj lUn gks ftldk gV o pkSgnh vk/kh bl izdkj gS iwjc dk fgLlk&jkeiky flag o uRFkw flag o gfj flag&if'pe esa fo'oukFk flag dk fgLlk gSA pkSgnh&mŸkj tkye flag dk ckx nf{k.k jkLrk if'pe&xkSdgk flga xkze lekt iwjc&flikgh flag 18. A "bare glance over the receipt would clearly reflects that the terms necessary to constitute the transfer are not ascertainable. There is not a single word that any property is being transferred and the receipt is towards the consideration received for transfer of certain property. In other words, receipt could have been given for any purpose whatsoever, may be for covering a loan taken by persons who have executed the receipt. Neither the term sale nor any term indicating handing over of the possession have been mentioned in the aforesaid receipt. In other words, receipt could have been given for any purpose whatsoever, may be for covering a loan taken by persons who have executed the receipt. Neither the term sale nor any term indicating handing over of the possession have been mentioned in the aforesaid receipt. It is noticeable that case of the defendant-appellant is that he is in possession of the property in question since 6.12.1971 (i.e., the date of receipt) when possession was handed over to him. This receipt is, therefore, on a plain reading, does not refer to any transaction or contract to transfer any immovable property. The word 'sale' is nowhere mentioned in the receipt and there is no mention of handing over of the possession of the property mentioned in the receipt. Therefore, the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are not attracted in the present case as the necessary ingredients thereof are clearly missing in this case. 19. Insofar as the possession is concerned, a categorical case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that they are in possession over the property in dispute through a registered sale-deed dated 13.9.1971 executed in favour of their father. Various documents in the shape of electricity connection and other receipts filed before the Trial Court by the defendant-appellant were disbelieved by the Trial Court on the ground that the defendant-appellant has himself admitted that he has several properties in the village and this receipt filed by the defendant-appellant are not indicative of the fact that they are in respect of the property in dispute. Even otherwise, such receipts, bills etc. are not conclusive proof of actual possession. Therefore, clearly, while deciding the issue No. 1, whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the property in question, it was rightly held that plaintiffs are in possession over the property in dispute. The question, therefore, in respect of the possession of the defendant over the property in dispute, has been duly considered by the Trial Court while deciding the issue No. 1 by disbelieving the evidence, documentary as well as oral given by the defendant-appellant and this finding has been rightly affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 20. Insofar as other questions involved in the present case is concerned, much emphasis was given before this Court as to whether this receipt was necessarily required to be a registered document or not. 20. Insofar as other questions involved in the present case is concerned, much emphasis was given before this Court as to whether this receipt was necessarily required to be a registered document or not. This question has already been decided against the defendant-appellant by both the Courts below. However, in view of the fact that the alleged receipt dated 6.12.1971, which was being claimed by the defendant-appellant to be a sale-deed, nowhere mentions that it is a sale-deed and the property in question is being transferred for consideration to the father of the defendant-appellant. Therefore, the reference to question relating to section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 cannot be said to be substantial question of law involved in the present case. From the alleged receipt, nature of the transaction is not at all clear and it cannot presume or could not be proved by any other document that this transaction was in fact a transaction of sale for consideration or even the possession of the property in dispute was handed over to the father of the defendant-appellant. 21. A Constitutional Bench of 5 Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sir Chunilal v. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 has considered the question 'as to what is the substantial question of law'. Various judgments of High Courts and Full Bench were considered by the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench and it was held that if the question is settled then it would not be a substantial question of law. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: "6. We are in general agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court and we think that while the view taken by the Bombay High Court is rather narrow the one taken by the former High Court of Nagpur is too wide. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from. difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well-settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." (Emphasis supplied) 22. Therefore, it is clear that merely because in the substantial questions of law so framed in the memo of appeal involving interpretation of any particular provision of the law by itself could not be substantial questions of law. 23. I have already noticed and has also gone through substantial questions of law framed in memo of appeal. I find that no substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal and the other questions that have been framed in the memo of appeal are related to the findings of facts and I do not find that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse in nature so as to attract any substantial question of law. 24. I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal and the case is covered by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 25. Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.