favour as regards the transfer of the suit property in dispute by Bihari in his name. As opposed to the oral testimony of the plaintiff-appellant which does not find any corroboration from documentary evidence, the defendants-respondents produced documents on record in the nature of Ex.P-2 i.e. the Aks Shazra of the suit property, Ex.P-3 i.e. the copy of jamabandi for the year 1995-96 and Ex.D-1 copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-2001, which nowhere reflects any possession in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Rather Bihari has been recorded as the owner in possession of the suit property. The mutation by way of inheritance in favour of the son and daughter of Bihari was duly sanctioned on the basis of inheritance. The suit property, thereafter, was sold in favour of defendant no.3 through registered sale deed no.297 dated 7.5.2002 and mutation in respect thereof was also sanctioned. The case of the plaintiff-appellant himself was to the effect that Bihari had relinquished his possession over the suit property in the year 1976 for a consideration of Rs.2500/-. No title with regard to immovable property could have vested in favour of plaintiffappellant having worth more than Rs.100/- without there being a registered sale document.
