The main legal point established is that the court can grant specific performance of a contract even if the sale deed is not registered, especially when the purchaser has paid the entire sale consideration and taken possession of the property.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 15. 11. 1976 in Civil Original Suit No. 329/1969 by which the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract and against the appellate judgment and decree dated 11. 11. 1985 in Civil First Appeal No. 46/1980 by which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal and though upheld the decree for specific performance of the contract but set aside the decree for possession on the ground that since the land is agricultural, therefore, decree for possession can be granted only by Revenue Court. The respondent-plaintiffs also submitted cross objection against decree as modified by the first appellate court denying the relief of possession in a suit of specific performance of the contract despite decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant-appellant agreed to sell the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 558, 559 and 560 having measurements 6 bighas 3 biswas, 6 bighas 16 biswas, 6 bighas 14 biswas.

( 3 ) THE defendant-appellant also gave neighbourhood of the said property. The property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- and its sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 20. 10. 1968 and possession was also delivered to the plaintiffs on the same day. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant received the entire sale consideration and executed sale-deed but he did not get the sale-deed registered and since the time passed, therefore, the plaintiffs on 8. 8. 1969 went to the house of the defendant where the defendant misled the plaintiffs by saying that since time has expired for the registration of the document, therefore, a new deed will be executed by the defendant. On this pretext the defendant took the sale-deed dated 20. 10. 1968 and the receipt of Rs. 1000/-from the plaintiffs and the defendant thereafter refused to execute the sale-deed. The plaintiff no. 1 immediately instituted Criminal Case No. 305/1969. Said documents were recovered from the defendant. The defendant thereafter filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract on 23. 12. 1969. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that immediately after taking possession of the suit property, the plaintiffs improved the land and started taking crops and he invested about Rs. 5000/ -. In above facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of the contract.

( 4 ) THE defendant submitted written statement and denied any agreement between the parties and also denied handing over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. However, he admitted that the criminal case is pending. After pleading so, the defendant, after denying the facts as stated in para no. 7 of the plaint, further submitted that the deed dated 20. 10. 1968 is not in relation to the land shown by the plaintiffs in the schedule annexed with the plaint. In additional pleas, only it is stated that suit has been filed to harass the defendant and the defendant is cultivating the land.

( 5 ) IT appears that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. wherein the land in question was attached under Section 146, Cr. P. C. The plaintiffs, therefore, amended the suit and sought relief for possession also. The trial court framed issue with respect to the execution of the sale-deed dated 20. 10. 1968 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs, about agreement for sale of the said property and with respect to handing over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs after taking sale consideration by the defendant. On the basis of the plea taken by the plaintiffs themselves, an issue was framed whether the defendant by misleading the plaintiffs, took away the sale deed dated 20. 10. 1968 and receipt from the plaintiffs and whether the plaintiffs incur