Unregistered sale deed cannot confer title or establish ownership over tea estate land.

The Respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of possession and eviction against the Appellant (defendant) regarding a premises situated within Gombhira Tea Estate

The Respondent claimed possession based on a certificate issued by the Tea Estate in 1998 (Exhibit-1) and asserted that the Appellant was inducted as a tenant under a bilateral agreement dated 05.10.2001 (Exhibit-2)

The Appellant filed a counterclaim, asserting ownership through an unregistered sale deed (Exhibit-A) allegedly executed by the Respondent’s late husband

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the counterclaim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Court

The Appellant approached the High Court in a second appeal, alleging that his evidence was not considered

1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and the trial court are perverse to the extent that the evidence tendered by the defendant No. 1 (appellant) was not considered?

The court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which restricts second appeals to "substantial questions of law" and prohibits reappreciation of facts unless findings are perverse

It relied on Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari regarding the definition of a "substantial question"

The court relied on Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal regarding perversity

Substantive laws applied included Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandate the registration of instruments for the transfer of immovable property

The court applied the principle from Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (reiterated in Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth) that an adverse inference is drawn when a party fails to enter the witness box to support their pleadings

The High Court observed that both lower courts had extensively evaluated the evidence.

The courts found that the Appellant’s claim of ownership via Exhibit-A (unregistered sale deed) was legally untenable because the document was unregistered and the purported seller had no transferable title to Tea Estate land

Conversely, the Respondent proved the tenancy agreement (Exhibit-2) through the testimony of the attesting witness (PW-3) and the scribe (PW-4)

The High Court noted that the Appellant's contention—that his evidence was ignored—was factually incorrect; rather, the lower courts simply found his evidence legally insufficient

Citing Russi Fisheries, the court emphasized that even if a finding of fact is erroneous, it cannot be disturbed under Section 100 CPC unless it is perverse or based on no evidence, which was not the case here as the conclusions were plausible and grounded in record

The court held that an unregistered sale deed cannot confer title under Section 54 of the Property Act

The second appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were upheld