Khatim Reza, J.—Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 passed in Title Appeal No. 85 of 2014 by the Court of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Naugachia (Bhagalpur), whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2014 passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge 1st, Naugachia (Bhagalpur), has been reversed.

3. At the time of admission of the present appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the following substantial question(s) of law were formulated for determination:—

“(I) Whether the judgment and decree of learned lower appellate court is legally sustainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff himself stated in his plaint that after unregistered agreement for sale dated 02.11.2007, also delivery the possession of suit land to him?

II. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not hit by the provisions of Section 53-A of the TP Act and Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act?

III. Whether unregistered agreement for sale dated 02.11.2007 executed along with delivery of possession is mandatory to register under Section 17(1-A) of the Indian Registration Act for the purpose of Section 53-A of the T.P. Act would be enforced before the Court of law?

IV. Whether the learned lower appellate court has an authority to deviate from the case as made out by the plaintiff in his plaint where as no averment is there that the sale deed dated 21.10.2002, is not only a sale deed, but also taken to be the registered agreement for sale for remaining land of the defendant, and unregistered agreement for sale deed is only the extension of the date for Execution of sale deed in pursuant to sale deed dated 21.10.2002?”

4. The respondent herein was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, whereas, the original appellant was the defendant in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that on 28.10.2007, the defendant-appellant represented to the plaintiff as owner in possession of a piece of land measuring 1 acre 53 decimals, appertaining to Khata No. 34 (new)/ Khata No. 18 (old), Plot No. 27 (new)/ Plot No. 35 (old), situated in Mouza- Karimchak, Thana No. 112 and he has full right and title to transfer the same, as detailed in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, having definite boundaries. It was further pleaded that the total area of land under old Khata No. 18 / new Khata No. 34 and old Plot No. 35 / new Plot No. 27 measured 2 acres 40 decimals, out of which the plaintiff had previously purchased 87 decimals from the defendant-appellant by a registered sale deed executed on 21.10.2002 upon payment of full consideration amount. Subsequently, on 02.11.2007, an agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for purchase of the suit land for a total consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. The defendant-appellant executed a deed of agreement after receiving Rs. 65,000/- in cash towards part consideration and delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the balance consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The agreement further stipulated that the defendant would execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 28.02.2008, upon receipt of the balance amount. It was stipulated that if the defendant fails to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff would be entitled to have the sale deed executed through the process of the Court. The plaintiff has stated that he has always been and still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, including payment of the balance sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiff approached the defendant several times in February 2008, requesting executio