JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2014 passed in R.A.No.247/2012 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, and the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2012 passed in O.S.No.26/2005 by the learned I Additional, Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration of title, and for a permanent injunction in alternative, relief of possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property was the Government land bearing Sy.No.38 belonging to Moorandahalli Village. The Government formed sites in the said survey number in 1972. The B.D.O granted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and based on the grant certificate issued by the Government, the plaintiff's name is entered in the revenue records, and he is paying the tax. It is contended that the defendant attempted to trespass and damage the suit schedule property, and also that the defendant is highly influenced person in the locality and trying to fix the boundaries stone over the same. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title, injunction, and in alternative possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. (Initially, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, and subsequently, filed an application in I.A.No.4 for amendment and the said application came to be allowed vide order dated 16.06.2006. The plaintiff, by way of an amendment, sought a relief of declaration of title). The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3.2. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,000/- and executed an unregistered sale deed dated 28.05.1987 and he delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. 3.2. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,000/- and executed an unregistered sale deed dated 28.05.1987 and he delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. It is contended that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property based on unregistered sale deed dated 28.05.1987. The Panchayat Authorities have also issued Form No.9 and 10 which proves his possession over the property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.3. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues and additional issues: Issues 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of defendant? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief as prayed? 4) To what decree or order? Additional Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit property? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and possession? 3.4. The original plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. In rebuttal, the defendant was examined himself as DW.1, examined three witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4, and marked 6 documents as Exs.D1 to D6. 3.5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, issue No.3 and additional issue No.2 partly in the affirmative, additional No.1 in the affirmative, and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 18.10.2012, and it is declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. For then the defendant was directed to handover the possession of the suit schedule property within 3 months from the date of judgment. 3.6. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.26/2005 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.247/2012 on the file of the Learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. 3.7. For then the defendant was directed to handover the possession of the suit schedule property within 3 months from the date of judgment. 3.6. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.26/2005 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.247/2012 on the file of the Learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. 3.7. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S.26/2005 dt:18.10.2012 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, is illegal, perverse, capricious, opposed to law, facts, probabilities of the case which needs interference by this Court? 2) What order? 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative, and point No.2 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and the judgment, and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.26/2005 was confirmed, vide judgment dated 24.04.2014. 3.9. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 07.10.2021, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether both the courts below are justified in considering the fact that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property inter- alia having a valid title to the suit schedule property?" 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant, and also the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he sold the suit property in favour of the defendant by executing an unregistered sale deed, and the plaintiff put the defendant in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that based on unregistered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant he became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that the said aspect was not adequately considered by the Courts below and committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. He submits that he paid the consideration of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff. He submits that Ex.D1 is marked without raising any objections. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. He submits that the said aspect was not adequately considered by the Courts below and committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. He submits that he paid the consideration of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff. He submits that Ex.D1 is marked without raising any objections. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant has admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff never executed alleged unregistered sale deed/agreement of sale, and has never delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant at any point of time. He submits that the said alleged unregistered sale deed/agreement of sale is inadmissible in evidence. He submits that the suit schedule property is a vacant site, and he submits that the possession follows title as per Section 110 of the Evidence Act. Hence, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property, and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Regarding substantial question of law: The original plaintiff to prove his case examined himself as PW1. He deposed that the suit schedule property was a Government land, and Government had formed sites in the said suit schedule property and it was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Based on the grant, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property since the date of grant. He deposed that the plaintiff neither agreed nor sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant by executing alleged unregistered sale deed/agreement of sale. The defendant, being an influential person in the locality, is trying to trespass into the suit schedule property. 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the Hakkupatra, which discloses that the suit schedule property was granted by the Government in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the assessment and demand register extracts. Ex.P4 to P6 are the photographs. Ex.P7 is the negative. 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the Hakkupatra, which discloses that the suit schedule property was granted by the Government in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the assessment and demand register extracts. Ex.P4 to P6 are the photographs. Ex.P7 is the negative. Exs.P8 and 9 are the demand register extract, and assessment extracts of the suit schedule property which discloses that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Ex.P10 is the E.O. Notice dated 06.11.2019. The plaintiff also examined three witnesses as PW2 to PW4 to prove the ownership over the suit schedule property. 11. In the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.1 that the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant under a unregistered sale deed and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The said suggestion was denied by PW1. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove that the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property in his favour produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the agreement of sale/unregistered sale deed. Ex.D2 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.D3 is the building license. Exs.D4 and 5 are the Form Nos.9 and 10. Ex.D6 is the mahazar. The defendant also examined 3 witnesses as DW2 to DW4. DW2 to DW4 have deposed that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property based on Ex.D1. 12. From the perusal of the entire records, there is no dispute that the suit schedule property was granted by the Government in favour of the plaintiff, and possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff and name of the plaintiff appeared in the Panchayat records. The only defence of the defendant is that the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration, and executed an unregistered sale deed. The plaintiff has denied the execution of Ex.D1. The defendant has not taken any steps to prove the execution of Ex.D1, when the plaintiff has seriously disputed the execution of Ex.D1. At one stretch the defendant contends that the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property, and at another stretch, the defendant contends that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration. The defendant has not taken any steps to prove the execution of Ex.D1, when the plaintiff has seriously disputed the execution of Ex.D1. At one stretch the defendant contends that the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property, and at another stretch, the defendant contends that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration. The defendant has taken inconsistent plea in the written statement. 13. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. However the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff filed an application for amendment seeking the relief of possession, in relief column the said application came to be allowed by the first appellate Court, and remitted the matter to the trial Court. 14. The trial Court provided an opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence on the amended portion of the plaint. After recording the evidence, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff has proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property under Ex.D1, and have rightly decreed the suit. 15. The first appellate court, after considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. At the cost of repetition, the defendant has failed to establish the execution of an unregistered sale deed by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the said Ex.D1 is the unregistered document. If the value of the immovable property is more than Rs.100, it requires compulsory registration as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Admittedly, Ex.D1 is an unregistered sale deed, and the said document is inadmissible in evidence. However, both the Courts below have looked the said document for collateral purpose i.e., only to prove the possession of the defendant. The defendant has not acquired any valid title by Ex.D1. 16. Both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the affirmative. 17. The defendant has not acquired any valid title by Ex.D1. 16. Both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the affirmative. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. iv. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending Interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of accordingly.