S.N.Hussain, J.

1. The instant second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-respondent-appellant against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned court of appeal below.

2. This matter arises out of Title Suit No. 24 of 1981 which was filed by the sole plaintiff for declaration that she was entitled to get a sale deed executed by the defendant in her favour for schedule-I land, after receiving Rs. 1,800.00 as per agreement of reconveyance dated 21.07.1978 on which date plaintiff had executed a sale deed in favour of the original defendant-appellant-respondent, namely, Brahmadeo Mishra, regarding the said Schedule-I land measuring 10 Kathas 05 Dhurs appertaining to S.P. No. 1125, Khata No. 304 of village Suza under the district of Begusarai.

3. The claim of the plaintiff was that there was a registered deed of sale dated 21.07.1978 (Ext. A) executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for Schedule-I land and on the same date i.e. 21.07.1978 there was a deed of agreement for reconveyance (Ext.1) executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for the said Schedule-I land on certain condition. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that after the execution of the said deed of reconveyance the plaintiff was always ready to pay the amount fixed in the deed but the defendant was never ready and willing to perform his part of the said agreement.

4. On the other hand, the defendant admitted the execution and registration of deed of agreement for reconveyance (Ext.1) and also admitted that he was ready to reconvey the land to the plaintiff on payment of the amount fixed but the plaintiff herself was never ready and willing to pay the said amount and on 05.01.1980 (Ext. F) the plaintiff executed an unregistered Yaddasht clearly stating that she was unable to arrange money and hence, defendant was entitled to utilize Schedule-I land as per his own will. It was thus claimed by the defendant that the agreement dated 21.07.1978 (Ext.1) stood rescinded by the plaintiff vide Yaddasht dated 05.01.1980 (Ext.F).

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:

Issues (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff, any right and cause of action to sue?

(iii) Is the suit barred by a limitation?

(iv) Is the suit barred under the provision of Specific Relief Act?

(v) Does the contract to reconvey the suit land by the defendant to the plaintiff subsists or stands extinguished by the execution of Yaddasht by the plaintiff?

(vi) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as prayed for?

(vii) To what other relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled?

6. Thereafter evidences were led on the said issues and the matter was heard and finally vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.1988 the learned Munsif-I, Begusarai decreed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 24 of 1981 on arriving at the following findings:

(i) Yaddasht (Ext. F) was unregistered and hence inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 as by it, a right accrued by registered document was sought to be taken away,

(ii) Plaintiff offered money to the defendant as per agreement(Ext.1) with request to reconvey.

(iii) Yaddasht (Ext. F) contained the left thumb impression of the plaintiff which was proved,

(iv) Defendant got his name mutated and obtained rent receipts on the basis of Yaddasht (Ext. F) but when the said document is inadmissible for proving relinquishment of the right of the plaintiff, the mutation and rent receipt cannot be relied upon.

(v) So far the issues of Limitation and Specific Relief Act were concerned, they were not pressed by the defendant but in view of the aforesaid findings it was held that the suit framed was maintainable and the plaintiff had cause of action for the suit and was entitled to the relief claimed.

7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court the defendant filed Title Appeal No. 11 of 1988 (11 of 1991) which was contested by t