1. The defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The suit property belonged to the defendant. On 7.2.2005, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of advance sale consideration. Ext.A1 is the agreement for sale executed between the parties on 7.2.2005. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has not conveyed the property as per the terms of Ext.A1 agreement and hence the suit for realization of the advance sale consideration charged on the suit property. Among others, the defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court found that since the defendant has no case that the plaintiff has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property as per the terms of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the advance sale consideration charged on the suit property, as provided for under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court also found that since the plaintiff is seeking to enforce payment of money charged on the suit property, the suit is governed by Article 62 of the schedule to the Limitation Act and the suit instituted within twelve years from the date of agreement is within time. Consequent on the said findings, the trial court passed a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. The defendant challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal. The appellate court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendant who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him has thus come up in this Second Appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, instruments which purport or operate to create any interest of the value of rupees one hundred and upwards to or in immovable property is compulsorily registrable and therefore, Ext.A1 agreement for sale being an unregistered document, the plaintiff cannot claim a charge over the suit property and if the plaintiff cannot claim a charge over the suit property, the suit would fall under Article 54 of the schedule to the Limitation Act and since the suit is filed beyond three years from the date fixed for specific performance, it is barred by limitation. In other words, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since Ext.A1 is an unregistered document, the charge claimed over the suit property for realisation of the advance sale consideration on the strength of the said agreement is unsustainable. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh, AIR 1926 PC 94 in support of the said contention.

5. The short question that falls for consideration is, therefore, whether the buyer in an unregistered agreement for sale of an immovable property is entitled to enforce the payment of advance sale consideration charged on the property. If the said question is decided against the appellant, the question of limitation raised by the appellant does not arise.

6. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act reads thus:

“100. Charges--Where immoveable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the later person is said to have a charge on the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust-property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom