1. In this case the father of the appellant sold the house in suit to the defendant Shankar Das in 1912 by an unregistered sale-deed for a sum of Rs. 90. Shankar Das mortgaged the house and the mortgagees who are the respondents in this case obtained a decree against Shankar Das on their mortgage. The plaintiff brought the present suit for a declaration that the house still belongs to him and is not liable to sale under the decree against Shankar Das. His contention was that Shankar Das's possession was purely permissive. On the evidence both Courts have rejected the plaintiff's case. The sole question urged in support of the appeal to this Court is that the sale-deed in favour of Shankar Das being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence even for the purpose of showing the nature of Shankar Das's possession. It may be noted that the Court below has merely used it to corroborate other evidence given by the defendants which the Court has believed. The property having been of the value of under Rs. 100 at the time when the sale took place could under the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act be sold either by a registered sale-deed or by delivery of possession. In this case there unquestionably was delivery of possession, and it has been held by Tudball, J., in Habib-ur-Rahman v. Rasul Bandi A.I.R. 1921 All. 81, that where there has been a sale or mortgage with delivery of possession the effect of the transaction is not destroyed because an unregistered sale-deed was executed at the same time. There is authority of the Calcutta High Court to the same effect in Ganga Narain v. Kali Charan (1895) 22 Cal. 179. There is also authority for the view that in such cases an unregistered sale-deed can be referred to in order to ascertain the nature of the possession sought to be disturbed. The case of Qadar Baksh v. Mangha Mal A.I.R. 1923 Lah. 495 is a recent authority to this effect and Jhamphu v. Kutramani (1917) 39 All. 696 is a case of this High Court to the same effect. On the authorities the case was rightly decided by the Court below and I dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.