An unregistered agreement cannot support a claim for possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, requiring a registered document for legal recognition.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appellant in these two appeals is the plaintiff in O.S.No.439/2015 has filed the suit for a specific performance of contract and the said suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by it the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.28/2025 and in the said regular appeal the plaintiff/appellant has filed I.A.No.I under Section 5 3A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘TP Act’) r/w Section 5 of CPC and I.A.No.III filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking protection of his possession over the suit schedule property based on the agreement of sale dated 16.04.2008 and I.A.No.II is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to restrain the defendant from alienating or creating any third party interest or encumbering of any sort over the suit schedule property.

2. The appellate court has dismissed the I.A.Nos.I and III and allowed I.A.No.II. By virtue of order passed on I.A.No.II the defendant is restrained from alienating or creating any third party interest over the suit schedule property.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.Nos.I and III the present appeal is filed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that by virtue of agreement of sale the defendant has put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property and till today he is in possession and during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff has been enjoying the order of injunction. Thus, the plaintiff has protected his possession over the suit schedule property.

5. By placing reliance on Ex.P-1 - agreement of sale he submitted that there was an oral agreement on 10.02.1994 and from that date onwards, the plaintiff is in possession over the property and it is unequivocally stipulated in the said agreement of sale, but the first appellate court has not considered this and rejected the applications. Further submitted that the trial court has observed in the judgment and gave findings that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property. Also PW4 and PW5 have deposed that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property. Though the suit is dismissed on other reasons, but there is categorical finding by the trial court that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property and that ought to have been protected, but the first appellate court has not considered this aspect, which has resulted in passing erroneous order rejecting I.A.Nos.I and III. Therefore, prays to allow the appeals and requested to grant an order of injunction protecting the possession of the plaintiff. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the alleged agreement of sale is unregistered agreement and possession was not conveyed to the plaintiff and also submitted that Section 5 3A of the TP Act is applicable only when the document is registered one. Since the agreement of sale is dated 16.04.2008, therefore to protect the possession over the property but the agreement of sale as per Section 5 3A of the TP Act the document must be registered as per Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, but in the present case the agreement of sale is not registered one. Therefore, the plaintiff is disentitled to base his claim on Section 5 3A of the TP Act.

7. Further submitted that PW1 in the cross examination admitted that as on today the defendants are in possession of the property. Therefore submitted that the defendants are in possession over the suit schedule property.

8. Further submitted that by virtue of agreement of sale, if handing over possession of the property is t