JUDGMENT : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2015, by which the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by impugned judgment and decree. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2015 before the trial court. 3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the plaintiff before the Trial Court are that plaintiff, Smt. Dhanmoti, is a housewife and she always remain sick, due to which she made her husband Tikaram her power of attorney holder. Plaintiff agreed into purchase of land bearing Plot No. 323/2 measuring 2280 sq. ft. with roof tile house on it for sale consideration of Rs. 45,000 and Plot No. 323/30 measuring 2525 sq.ft. with baadi on it for Rs. 45,000 (suit house and baadi) from Smt. Ramshila, paid Rs. 90,000 cash in presence of witnesses on 02.06.2001 and took possession of the property. Since then either Ramshila (seller) or her legal heirs have not objected or disputed. In the year 2006, Tikaram, Government servant, was posted at Raipur and therefore plaintiff also shifted along with her husband and locked the house and baadi. Plaintiff’s husband time to time visits his house for its supervision. It is further pleaded that when husband of plaintiff came to know that defendant had encroached over the disputed property by breaking open the lock and when defendant was asked to vacate the premises, plaintiff’s husband was threatened. He orally reported the matter to police, where he was advised to approach Court. Case was initially filed in Civil Court bearing Civil Suit No. 15-A/2001, which was returned back to file in the court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Defendant and his brother also filed civil suit for specific performance of contract which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2012. The agreement dated 26.04.2006 was refuted by Chanchala Bai, daughter of Ramshila. 5. Defendant, in his written statement, has denied all adverse pleadings made in the plaint and specifically denied that any transaction or agreement ever took place between the plaintiff and late Smt. Ramshila, widow of Sahadev, regarding the residential house and courtyard situated on Khasra Nos. The agreement dated 26.04.2006 was refuted by Chanchala Bai, daughter of Ramshila. 5. Defendant, in his written statement, has denied all adverse pleadings made in the plaint and specifically denied that any transaction or agreement ever took place between the plaintiff and late Smt. Ramshila, widow of Sahadev, regarding the residential house and courtyard situated on Khasra Nos. 323/28 and 323/30 respectively at village Bodapali. It is also pleaded that the alleged agreement dated 02.06.2001 relied upon by the plaintiff is false, fabricated, and legally invalid. No registered sale deed was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, she does not acquire any title or ownership over the disputed property. The alleged possession claimed by the plaintiff, without ownership or registered document, confers no legal right. The defendant further pleaded that as per the order issued in Revenue Case No. 38A/66 2001-2002 dated 15.05.2002, ownership and possession of the suit land stood recorded in the name of late Smt. Ramshila; hence, the plaintiff’s claim is baseless and contrary to record. 6. The defendant admitted that the husband of plaintiff is a government servant but asserted that the plaintiff resides with him in Saraipali and never possessed the disputed house. The allegation that the plaintiff locked or stored belongings in the suit house is denied. It is pleaded that the defendant is in peaceful possession of the disputed property after acquiring it from Smt. Chanchala Bai, the only daughter of late Sahadev and Ramshila, through deed dated 26.04.2005. The plaintiff, having no valid or registered document of title, cannot claim ownership or possession nor challenge the defendant’s lawful possession. The defendant therefore pleaded that the plaintiff’s suit, based on an unregistered and forged agreement, is misconceived, unsupported by evidence, and liable to dismissal. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and evidence, learned Trial Court has framed as many as six issues for consideration and upon appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties, dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff by impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this first appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the claim of plaintiff observing that plaintiff failed to prove valid execution of document Ext. Hence, this first appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the claim of plaintiff observing that plaintiff failed to prove valid execution of document Ext. P-1 which is an agreement to sale and further on the date of execution of document entire sale consideration was paid and possession was taken. Trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses and further recorded that the plaintiff failed to prove that she came in possession of the suit property on the date of execution of Ext. P-1 by admissible piece of evidence. It is contention of learned counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff in plaint has specifically pleaded about execution of document Ext. P-1 of selling the land bearing khasra No. 323/30 measuring 25x101= 2525 sq.ft. of land on part of which the house was constructed and remaining land was open for consideration of Rs. 45000. He also contended that the agreement was recorded on a stamp paper of Rs. 50 notarized by notary. Since the date of purchase of land, plaintiff was in possession of the house and land however due to posting of her husband at Bilaigarh she left the village Bodapali and started residing with her husband at Bilaigarh. Defendant taking benefit of locked house forcefully entered into the house and took its possession. This fact revealed to plaintiff only in the year 2006 and thereafter the suit was filed. The finding recorded by the Trial Court on execution of document Ext. P-1, possession of plaintiff on the disputed property as also the suit to be barred by limitation is perverse to the evidence available on record. 9. Mr. Pushp Gupta, learned counsel for respondent would submit that the Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, brought on record by the respective parties, rightly came to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove valid execution of document Ext. P-1. He contended that the Trial Court upon appreciating the contents of document Ext. P-1 has categorically recorded that it is in the form of execution of sale deed, however, it is an unregistered document. He contended that value of the property as mentioned in Ext. P-1 is more than Rs. 100, therefore its registration was mandatory under the Registration Act. He next contended that the possession of plaintiff since the date of execution of Ext. He contended that value of the property as mentioned in Ext. P-1 is more than Rs. 100, therefore its registration was mandatory under the Registration Act. He next contended that the possession of plaintiff since the date of execution of Ext. P-1 is not proved by admissible evidence. Witness PW-1, husband of plaintiff, in his evidence though stated that in the year 2006 when he visited village Bodapali, he came to know that defendant forcefully took possession of his house after breaking the lock but there is no material to suggest that the husband of plaintiff who is a government servant has made any report or complaint to the concerned authority and therefore Trial Court has rightly held that the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation in view of Article 64 of the Limitation Act. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case brought on record. 11. The case of plaintiff is primary based on the alleged agreement dated 02.06.2001 (Ext. P-1) with late Smt. Ramshila, for purchase of Plot No. 323/2 with shed and courtyard and adjoining Badi (Khasra No. 323/30) for Rs. 90,000, and possession allegedly delivered on the same day. The plaintiff contended that thereafter she repaired the house, exercised ownership and continuous possession, and that neither the seller nor her legal heirs raised objection until the defendant took forceful possession in 2006 and then in 2012. 12. The defendant, however, denied the fact of execution of any such agreement. His contention is that Ext. P-1 is “fabricated, forged and without legal validity”. Plaintiff never had a registered sale deed nor the title. It remained in the name of Ramshila, as per the allotment document dated 15.05.2002 in Revenue Case No. 38A/66/2001-2002 in her favour; and further stated that the defendant acquired the suit property legitimately from Smt. Chanchala Bai. 13. In the given background of the case, I find it appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 14. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “transfer of property” as under: “ 5. 13. In the given background of the case, I find it appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 14. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “transfer of property” as under: “ 5. ‘ Transfer of property’ defined .—In the following sections ‘transfer of property’ means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself or to himself and one or more other living persons and ‘to transfer property’ is to perform such act.” 15. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines ‘sale’ as under: “ 54 . “ Sale ” defined . "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. -- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale. -- A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 16. Contract for sale. -- A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 16. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “part-performance” which is 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.” 17. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes a deed of conveyance compulsorily registerable, which may also be necessary to be extracted herein. Relevant portions of Section 17 is extracted below for ready reference: “ 17. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes a deed of conveyance compulsorily registerable, which may also be necessary to be extracted herein. Relevant portions of Section 17 is extracted below for ready reference: “ 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory .— (1) The following documents shall be registered, namely— *** (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; *** (1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53-A 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 53-A.” 18. The law with respect to transfer of immovable property is well settled. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, “sale” means transfer of ownership in exchange for a price. In order for such a transfer of ownership in immovable property to be effective, the instrument of conveyance must comply with legal formalities including registration under the Registration Act, 1908 if registration is mandatory under Section 17 thereof (and the document falls within the ambit). The Supreme Court has time and again held that an “agreement to sell” (even if executed, payment made, and possession delivered) is not a conveyance unless a sale deed is executed and registered; it cannot by itself create a right of ownership or transferable interest in the property. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 while dealing with its earlier decision on the issue of conveyance of immovable property has held as under: “ 15. In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009 [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 ], the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference: (SCC p. 367, paras 15-18) “15. In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009 [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 ], the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference: (SCC p. 367, paras 15-18) “15. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration. 16. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which 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 Rs 100 and upwards to or in immovable property. 17. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. 18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.” 16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, (1977) 3 SCC 247 observed: (SCC pp. 254-55, paras 32-33 & 37) “32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, AIR 1967 SC 744 : (1967) 1 SCR 293 ) The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein. 33. In India, the word ‘transfer’ is defined with reference to the word ‘convey’. … The word ‘conveys’ in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership. *** 37. … that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another….” 17. x x x x 18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. 19. x x x x 18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. 19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter. 20. More recently, in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated thus: “ 9.2 …In the absence of a suit for specific performance, the agreement to sell cannot be relied upon to claim ownership or to assert any transferable interest in the property. This legal position has been conclusively laid down by this Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, wherein, it was held that unregistered agreements to sell, even if coupled with possession, do not convey title or create any interest in the immovable property. It was further clarified that such documents are insufficient to complete a sale unless duly registered and followed by appropriate conveyance.” 21. From the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the settled legal position emerges that an agreement to sell by itself does not convey ownership or any transferable interest in immovable property; it merely creates a contractual right to seek execution of a registered sale deed through a suit for specific performance. Transfer of title in immovable property valued at Rs. 100 or more can only be effected by a registered conveyance deed in compliance with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Transfer of title in immovable property valued at Rs. 100 or more can only be effected by a registered conveyance deed in compliance with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Mere payment of consideration or delivery of possession does not dispense with the mandatory requirement of registration. Revenue records, allotment certificates, or mutation entries cannot substitute a registered sale deed when the statute expressly requires registration. Furthermore, an unregistered agreement to sell, even if coupled with possession, is admissible only for collateral purposes, such as proving the existence of a contract but cannot itself confer title or ownership rights in the property. 22. Applying the aforesaid settled principles in the case at hand, it is evident that the entire claim of plaintiff rests on the unregistered agreement dated 02.06.2001 (Ex. P-1) stated to be executed by late Smt. Ramshila. The plaintiff has not produced any registered sale deed in her favour nor adduced proof of any subsequent execution or registration of conveyance transferring ownership from the seller to her name. On the contrary, the revenue record produced by the defendant, namely the land-owner’s title certificate dated 15.05.2002 issued in Revenue Case No. 38A/66/2001-2002, mentioning ownership and possession of the suit land in the name of Smt. Ramshila. This documentary evidence establishes that the title continued with the original owner even after the alleged execution of Ex. P-1. In light of Suraj Lamp (supra) and Vinod Infra Developers (supra) , an unregistered document cannot operate as a conveyance nor can it transfer ownership merely because consideration was paid or possession was allegedly delivered. Hence, Ex. P-1 cannot be treated as a valid sale deed or confer any proprietary right upon the plaintiff of immovable property. 23. The ground raised by learned counsel for plaintiff that she came in possession of suit property from the date of execution of Ex. P-1 and continued to remain in peaceful occupation thereafter is also not proved by cogent evidence. The plaintiff admittedly started residing at Bilaigarh with her husband who was transferred and posted at Raipur in the year 2006 and stated to have secured the house by locking it and keeping her household goods inside. Possession must be effective and capable of enjoyment as an owner, mere custody or intermittent visits do not amount to possession. The plaintiff admittedly started residing at Bilaigarh with her husband who was transferred and posted at Raipur in the year 2006 and stated to have secured the house by locking it and keeping her household goods inside. Possession must be effective and capable of enjoyment as an owner, mere custody or intermittent visits do not amount to possession. In absence of proof of continuous physical control or occupation, the plea of settled possession by the plaintiff cannot be accepted. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff has failed to establish a legally enforceable title or ownership over the suit property, as the document (Ex. P-1) relied upon by her is an unregistered agreement to sell which, by settled law, cannot convey ownership or any transferable right in immovable property. The plaintiff has also failed to prove continuous lawful possession from the date of the alleged transaction, and the evidence led on record does not substantiate her plea that she was in actual possession of the property till the date of alleged dispossession. Moreover, the claim itself is barred by limitation under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation having commenced on 19.05.2006—the date on which the plaintiff herself asserts that the defendant forcibly took possession of the suit property. 25. Trial Court has rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, applied the correct principles of law, and recorded well-reasoned findings on each issue. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 26. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the plaintiff and it is hereby dismissed . The impugned judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2015, dismissing the suit of plaintiff for possession and other consequential reliefs, are affirmed. 27. No order as to costs. 28. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for compliance.