1. A suit for specific performance of an agreement came to be filed by the plaintiff (ancestor of Respondents No. 1 to 3), on the premise of the facts that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had mutually partitioned their ancestral house, vide a family settlement dated 31.12.2000; whereafter, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into a mutual settlement dated 10.04.2001, vide which, the defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the shop to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, in which, the defendant No.2 (the present petitioner) had been carrying on business in the name of ‘Mahila Suhag Bhandar’. Pursuant to the said mutual settlement dated 10.04.2001, the defendant No.1 was paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.08.2001, in acknowledgment thereof, a receipt of even date in favour of the plaintiff came to be issued.

2. All the three documents were made the basis of the suit and were marked as Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3 respectively. By way of the written statement, the defendant No.1 raised an objection in relation to the admissibility of the two documents, namely, the family settlements dated 31.12.2000 and 10.04.2001 for which, a specific issue in the form of issue No. 8 was framed by the Trial Court, which reads thus:-

^^8- vk;k oknh o izfroknh la[;k & 1 ds e/; fu’ikfnr ikfjokfjd le>kSrk 31-12-2000 o la”kksf/kr vkilh le>kSrk 10-4-01 lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gS \ & izfr- la[;k 2**

3. During the course of proceedings, the defendant No.1 moved an application under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the Trial Court to decide the above issue as a Preliminary Issue. The said issue No. 8 came to be decided by the Trial Court as a Preliminary Issue, vide its order dated 23.10.2008 whereby the Court below had held that the mutual settlement dated 10.04.2001 is neither duly stamped nor registered; for which, it is not admissible in evidence. It will not be out of place to reproduce the findings recorded by the Trial Court, which reads thus:-

^^8- mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij oknh }kjk izLrqr vkilh caVokjk fnu- 10-04-01 i;kZIr LVkai ij ugha gS u gh jftLVMZ gS o vkilh la”kks/ku i= u rks LVkai ij gS u jftLVMZ gS tks fd dkuquu jftLVMZ o LVkai ij gksuk vko”;d gS ftlds vHkko esa mDr nksuksa nLrkost lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gSA QyLo:i ;g rudh izfroknh ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA**

4. Against the above referred order dated 23.10.2008 deciding the issue No.8, the plaintiff preferred a writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9895/2008 (Hukam Singh Mehta Vs. LRs of Late Nathu Singh & Ors.), which came to be allowed by this Court, vide its order dated 16.05.2013. While deciding the above writ petition, this Court relied upon proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and held that for the suit in question, which is a suit for specific performance, the documents dated 31.12.2000 and 10.04.2001 are admissible in evidence. It will not be out of place to reproduce the reasoning and findings recorded by this Court, while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, vide its judgment and order dated

16.05.2013:-

“In view of the provisions of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and particularly in view of the second part of section 49, this Court feels difficulty in holding that unregistered documents affecting the immovable property is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance. It is also observed that the respondent No.1 himself has relied upon the memorandum of partition/partition-deed while selling the shop falling in his share as per the said partition-deed. In the case in hand, the petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and therefore, the documents dated 31.12.2000 and 10.04.2001 produced by the petitioner along with his affidavit ipso facto, cannot be held to be inadmissible in evidence only for the reason that the same are not registered as required by section 17 of the Indian Registration Act or by any provision of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882. Nature of the