Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14390 Court No. - 4 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 42 of 2025 Appellant :- Shri Keshan(Dead) And Another Respondent :- Smt. Sukhrani (Dead) And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ganga Singh,Arvind Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ganga Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10,Lucknow in R.C.A. No.31 of 2015(Shri Keshan (Dead) and Another versus Smt. Sukhrani(Dead) and others) and judgment and decree dated 31.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Court No.35, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.280 of 2010(Smt. Sukhrani versus Shri Keshan). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff- respondents had filed suit for permanent injunction which was allowed, whereas the land in dispute was purchased by the defendant-appellant from the father-in-law of the respondent no.1 and the sale deed was executed for a sale consideration of Rs.600 on 03.07.1982, on which the respondent no.1 had also signed and thereafter the defendant-appellant is in possession of the land in dispute therefore the injunction could not have been granted. He relies on Jagdish versus Rajendra; AIR 1975 All. 395. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, I have perused the documents placed on record of this Appeal. 5. The suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff- respondents claiming possession on the land in dispute. During pendency of the suit, some construction was made by the respondents,therefore the suit was amended and relief for mandatory injunction was also sought. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants denying the case set up by the plaintiff-respondents and claiming the land in dispute on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 03.07.1982 for a sale consideration of Rs.600. 6. Learned trial court after exchange of pleadings framed 5 issues. Thereafter evidence was adduced by the parties. After considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the trial court found that the plaintiff-respondents were in possession of the land in dispute on the date when the suit was filed. However, the relief for mandatory injunction could not be granted because it could not be proved as to on which part, the construction was raised as the said portion was not identifiable. Learned trial court also found that the defendant-appellants are claiming possession on the land in dispute on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 03.07.1982, whereas the land cannot be sold through an unregistered sale deed. 7. The alleged unregistered sale deed dated 03.07.1982 was made for a sale consideration of Rs.600, whereas the sale of an immovable property of a value of Rs.100 and upwards can be made only by registered instrument under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Therefore the claim set up by the defendant-appellants is misconceived and not tenable. 8. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the courts below have recorded a finding of possession of the plaintiff- respondents on the basis of pleadings, evidence and material on record in respect of the relief for permanent injunction and the appeal filed by the defendant-appellants has also been dismissed after considering the pleadings, evidence and grounds raised in the appeal. Merely because the plea of possession and construction raised by the defendant-appellants during pendency of the appeal could not be proved as the portion on which construction was made was not identifiable and no commission was made, it cannot be said that the plaintiff- respondents are not in possession on the land in dispute. Therefore the appellant is not entitled for any benefit of the case relied by him in the case of Jagdish Prasad versus Rajendra(supra). 9. Thus, the courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees in accordance with law after considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record which does not suffer from any illegality or error. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below cannot be interfered by this Court unless they are perverse.No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 10. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. Dismissed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench