Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner is the defendant. A suit for Specific Performance of Contract Act has been filed at the end of the respondent/plaintiff wherein after appearance of defendant/petitioner, a petition has been filed on his behalf before the learned lower Court in terms of Order-VII, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. asking for rejection of the plaint in the background of presence of Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act stating that the document purported to be in support of activities governed under Section 53(A) of the T. P. Act, requires registration. As the present suit has been filed on the basis of alleged unregistered deed of agreement, hence no suit under banner of Section 53(A) of the T.P. Act (Part Performance) is permissible, whereupon plaint is fit to be rejected.

3. The learned lower Court after hearing both the parties has rejected the prayer by the order impugned. Hence this petition.

4. In order to substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after amendment of the Section 17 of the Registration Act, Section 17(1-A) has been introduced in order to put safeguard upon the interest of the proposed transferor from being duped, impersonated, cheated, deceived and further, for that purpose registration of the document has been made compulsorily. Once, there happens to be intention of the legislature to have the act performed in particular way in order to justify or accrual of a particular right, then in that event, that act is to be exercised in same manner to achieve such right and so, the document unless and until being registered one, would not give any substantive or legal right to the plaintiff to draw a suit for Specific Performance of Contract. Further, in order to substantiate such plea, relied upon Ashok Goenka vs. Chandra Bhushan Singh and Others reported in 2010(1) P.L.J.R. 317 as well as Gurbachan Singh v. Raghubir Singh reported in A.I.R. 2010 Punjab and Haryana 77. So, submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned lower Court happens to be bad and is accordingly, fit to be set aside.

5. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent that in terms of Section 53(A) of the T.P. Act, the transferor is found duly forbidden to raise such plea and on account thereof, he is precluded in getting any sort of relief in terms of Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act.

6. Before adjudicating upon the order impugned, certain factual events is to be taken note of. There happens to be no controversy with regard to the admitted status of the land under dispute to be mortgaged property and for that, plaintiff happens to be the mortgagee while the petitioner/defendant happens to be the mortgagor. The land was given in possession of respondent/plaintiff and so, basically it happens to be an usufructuary mortgage. As the petitioner/defendant was unable to pay the mortgaged amount on account thereof, both the parties entered into negotiation, which was finalized on a particular consideration amount and in token thereof, deed of agreement was prepared and as, the petitioner/defendant failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, attracted institution of the instant suit under the banner of Specific Relief Act.

7. In the aforesaid factual aspect, now the relevant law having applicability over the aforesaid dispute is to be taken note of.

8. The first one happens to be the T.P. Act relating to transfer of the immovable property. Section 5 of the T.P. Act defines the transfer of property:-

5. Transfer of property” defined.- In the following sections - transfer of property” means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, [Inserted by Act 20 of 1929, S.6] and one or more other living persons; and - to transfer property” is to perform such act. Inserted by Act 20 of 1929, S.6 [In this section - li