8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property through the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1984 (Ex-P/2) from its owner Tijiya Bai and title has been transferred to the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendants that their father had purchased the suit property from Nathu Ram but they have not produced any deed of title by which they purchased the suit property from Nathu Ram. From the document (Ex-P/1), it has duly been proved that the property belongs to Nathu Ram and thereafter, Tijiya Bai was the owner of the property, who, on her rightful ownership, sold the suit property to the plaintiffs and conveyed the title upon them. The learned trial Court has erroneously held that the document (Ex-P/1) is not the deed of title in the subject property which is situated over the nazul land, which is the property belongs to State government and since, the possession of the plaintiffs or Tijiya Bai was not there in the suit property, and from the document of payment of land revenue by the defendant Ishwar Singh, his possession has been found, the transaction of sale is not completed in absence of delivery of possession of the suit property and thus, the title of the suit property was not transferred to the plaintiffs and they are not the owner of the same. The delivery of possession is not required when the property was transferred through registered sale deed and the purchaser can claim possession of the property which they have purchased. At the time of its sale transaction, Tijiya Bai was in constructive possession of the suit property and she transferred the same to the plaintiffs, therefore, the judgment passed by learned Courts below are perverse
