Admittedly, Mukunda Ram Kachari is not the recorded pattadar/ land-holder of the suit land. PW-5 had referred to khatian No.236, but the respondents No.1 and 2 did not exhibit the khatian and, as such, no proof has been tendered by the respondents No.1 and 2 in the suit that the name of the executor of Ext.1 was recorded in the khatian as an occupancy tenant. Moreover, the Ext.1 is not in favour of the respondent No.1, but it is favour of 4 purchasers, one of whom is the respondent No.2. In the suit, no proof has been tendered that the share of the four purchasers of land vide Ext.1 had been partitioned and that the suit land measuring 2 katha fell in her share. The respondent No.2 was not examined as witness to her transaction with vendor of Ext.1. Therefore, a mere registration of the sale deed of “delivery of possession” by a third party cannot amount to transfer of lawful right, title or interest of the suit land in favour of the respondent No.2 because the proforma respondent No.3 did not have any iota of title over the suit land, he did not have the status of land holder in terms of Regulation 8 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and his name in the khatian was not proved. Thus, there was no documentary proof by the respondents No.1 and 2 to show that the proforma respondent No.3 was having physical possession of the suit land. Accordingly, viewed from all angles, the proforma respondent No.3, i.e. the vendor of Ext.1 could not have passed a better title in respect of the suit land to the respondent No.2 by virtue of sale deed No.5023 dated 01.08.1963 (Ext.1). Therefore, while by virtue of Ext.1, a lawful and valid title or possession of suit land was not transferred, but by virtue of sale deed Nos.3407 (Ext.10) and 3406 (Ext.9) dated 18.05.1995, valid transfer of right, title, interest and possession of the suit land was made by the proforma respondent No.4, the owner of the suit land, in favour of the appellants. The said two sale deeds No. 3407 and 3406 (Ext.9/ Ext. Kha) and 3406 (Ext.10/ Ext.Ka) were exhibited without any objection by PW-1 and DW-1. In this regard it would be very relevant to quote paragraph 12 of the case of Manmatha Rajan Tribedi Vs. Gopal Krishna T.E. Co. (P) Ltd. and others, (2006) Supp GLT 718 “It is thus, clear that in order to acquire a valid right, title and interest over any immovable property valued Rs.100/- or above by way of purchase it should be effected by a registered instrument by payment or promising to pay the consideration money. The Transfer of Property Act does not lay down any condition that in order to acquire title over a property purchased by executing registered sale deed, the delivery of possession is a condition precedent. By virtue of the registered sale deed referred to above, the right, title and interest over the land mentioned in
