RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment/decree dated 30.07.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 3A/2002, wherein the said court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract regarding land bearing Survey No. 493/27A area admeasuring 62 x 22 = 1364 sq.ft. situated at Main Road, Korba, Patwari Halka No. 04, Revenue Circle, Tahsil & District- Korba (C.G.) in which, house shop and godown are constructed. Map of the said property is appended with the plaint.

2. Admittedly, the respondent/defendant is owner of the property in question. As per version of the appellant, the respondent was agreed to sale the suit property for a cash consideration of Rs. 1,95,000/- on 18.04.1998 to the appellant/plaintiff and received Rs. 11,000/- as earnest money from her. The balance consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of registering the sale deed.

3. The respondent/defendant had agreed to obtain the requisite sanction from the competent revenue authority for sale deed. The contract was oral and was not evidenced by any documents or deed. The possession of the suit property was delivered to the appellant/plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement of sale. The respondent/defendant had applied before Collector, Korba for sanction on 21.07.1998 as per provision of Section 165 (6) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 as the region is tribal region. The appellant sent a registered notice on 23.12.2000 to the respondent to execute the sale deed as the appellant was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract, but sale deed was not executed. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that agreement to sale ought to have been registered as per provision of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. This appeal is preferred on the following grounds:-

(i) No law requires agreement to sale must be in writing, therefore, oral agreement for sale is also enforceable.

(ii) Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 applies for sale to agreement whether oral or in writing.

(iii) Sale of contract does not create any interest in or charge on such property.

(iv) The trial court has lost sight of the provision of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 which says that an unregistered document may be received as evidence for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or as evidence of any collateral transaction without registration.

(v) The respondent has given statement before Tahsildar as per Ex.P/3 and has clearly admitted that she agreed to sale the property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and delivered the possession of the property after receiving Rs. 11,000/- as advance sum. There is nothing on record to refuse the decree of specific performance in view of Section 20(2)(a),(b) & (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(vi) As per Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Court may compel the respondent/defendant to apply for such permission before the revenue authority, therefore, finding recorded by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

5. He placed reliance in the matter of Rattan Lal (Since deceased) through his Legal Representatives Vs. S.N. Bhalla & another reported in, (2012) AIR SC 3094, Girimallappa Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer M & MIP & another reported in, (2012) AIR SC 3101, Munnalal & others Vs. Atmaram & others reported in,2008 AIR Noc 843 (M.P.), S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & others reported in, (2010) 2 CGLJ 305 (SC), Jawahar Lal Nagdev Vs. Sattibai reported in, (2010) 2 CGLJ 312.

6. The first question for consideration before this Court is whether the land in question is within notified area for which Section 165 (6) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 will apply and whether the sanction from competent authority/Collector is required before ex