The bar under Section 92 of the Evidence Act applies to all contracts, grants or other dispositions of property as enumerated in Section 91, if reduced into writing, whether or not such contract or grant is compulsorily required to be reduced into writing and registered.

SARMA, J.:- This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the learned District Judge, Tripura, dated 16-1-1967 passed in Title Appeal No. 33 of 1964 whereby he dismissed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a plot of land measuring 5 kanis, as described in the schedule to the plaint, hereafter called the suit land.

2. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant Shri Harendra Kumar Das entered into a contract with late Amulya Kumar Majumder - husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of the other plaintiffs, on 18-4-1960 A. D. to sell the suit land for Rs. 15,900/- by executing a registered deed of agreement (Ext. P-1) on receipt of Rs. 1,000/- as advance with the stipulation that he would execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance of the consideration money on or before the 30th day of Chaitra, 1367 B. S. After this agreement Amulya Kumar Majumder died in the month of Sravan. During his lifetime Amulya Kumar Majumder himself and after his death the plaintff No. 1 requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. on receipt of the balance of the consideration money but the defendant did not pay any heed. The plaintiffs averred that they were and they are still willing to perform their part of the contract. As the defendant avoided execution of the sale deed in spite of repeated requests the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for refund of the advance money, against the defendant.

3. The defendant contested the suit denying that he had entered into any contract for sale of the suit land as alleged by the plaintiffs. His case was that late Amulya Kumar Majumder carried on money lending business and he (the defdt.) used to take loan from Amulya Kumar Majumder, occasionally. On 18-4-1960, he stated, he took a loan of Rs. 1,000/-from him. As Amulya Kumar Majumder was then serving in the office of the Sub-Registrar it was difficult for him to take a licence for such money lending business and so instead of taking a bond for the amount he got a bainapatra (Exhibit P-1) executed by him (the defendant) as was done on some previous occasion. Though it was executed as a bainapatra it was actually taken as a security for the loan. The defendant further alleged that he paid Rs. 662-8 annas i. e.. Rs. 600/- towards the principal and Rs. 62-8 annas as interest on 9-6-60 A. D. and executed a promissory note for the balance of Rs. 400. Thereafter he cleared the balance as well to the plaintiff No. 1 and got back the promissory note from her. Under the circumstances the defendant denied his liability to execute any sale deed or to refund any advance money said to have been paid to him. The suit was also resisted on some other grounds with which we are not concerned in this appeal.

4. The plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses including the scribe and one attesting witness of the bainapatra Ext. P-1, in support of their case. The defendant also examined 4 witnesses to prove that he had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from late Amulya Kumar Majumder and that he paid Rs. 662-8 annas to said Amulya Kumar Majumder on 18-4-1960 and executed a promissory note Ext. D-1 for the balance of Rs. 400/- and subsequently paid this balance as well to plaintiff No. 1 and got back the promissory note. He also proved a similar registered bainapatra Ext. D-5 executed by him in favour of Amulya Kumar Majumder on 27-8-1959 under similar circumstances in respect of the same land which he subsequently got back from Amulya Kumar Majumder, after clearing the loan.

5. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties the learned Munsiff who tried the suit rejected the defence case and he decreed the suit. The learned Munsiff held, inter alia, that in view of the registered deed of agreement the defendant was debarred under Section 92 of the Evidence Act to take any such plea, as he did in the case. In the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the lea