Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant was the defendant before the Trial Court. The suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property, which was described as follows:

“All that piece and parcel of the Southern side Western Portion of House / site property bearing No.14, 15, 19 and 13, ReSurvey No.1/4 and 1/B5, Present Corporation No.19, situated at 1st Cross, Byrasandra village, Jayanagar Corporation Ward No.60,

And Measuring

East to West: On the Northern side 30 feet On the Southern side 37.6 feet

North to South: 20 feet

And bounded on

East by : Private Property

West by : Sanatorium Compound

North by : Portion of the property retained by the vendors.

South by : 10 feet Road.

Together with two square A.C. Sheet House thereon.”

3. It was the respondent plaintiff’s primary contention that the plaintiff was put in possession under an agreement of sale and had continued in such possession till there was an absolute sale deed executed in his favour. Notwithstanding the same, since there was interference by the defendant, the suit was filed. The defendant on entering appearance, had filed written statement and had contended that the plaintiff had created the documents, on the basis of which he was laying claim to the suit property.

The defendant had entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the entire property, including the suit schedule property which was a portion of the property agreed to be so purchased from the previous owners, namely Hamsaveni, W/o. M.B. Thyagaraj and her children and the defendant had even issued a public notice of her intention to purchase the entire property and had not received any objections. Thereafter, she had entered into a registered agreement of sale with Hamsaveni and her children on 12.11.2003. The defendant had denied that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale on 20.12.2003 with the vendors. Whereas, the defendant had purchased the entire property from the previous owners and let it out on rent. When the plaintiff tried to secure the katha in respect of the suit schedule property and had failed, there is no substance in the contention of the plaintiff that he had purchased the property. That the sale deed under which the plaintiff was claiming was a later sale deed dated 29.05.2004, whereas the defendant was claiming under a sale deed dated 15.12.2003. Further, the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff had been executed by the registered Power of Attorney holder executed by the original owners, to which the vendors were the consenting witnesses. Whereas, the sale deed in favour of the defendant was executed by the owners themselves.

The Trial Court had framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property on the date of suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant is interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?

4. What order or decree?”

The Trial Court had answered the issues to the effect that the plaintiff had proved that he was in lawful possession of the suit property and he had further proved that the defendant was interfering with his possession and granted the relief of injunction. It is that which is under question in the present appeal.

The Trial Court having also found that the plaintiff has a better title than that of the defendant, the present appeal is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would straightaway point out that the agreement of sale under which the plaintiff claims to have come into possession, initially, was an unregistered agreement of sale. By virtue of amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, whereby subsection (1A) has been incorporated, which would require any such agreement whereby possession has been