Honble VERMA, J.–The revision petitioner was plaintiff in the suit for specific performance and has come up against the order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City whereby the order dated 23.11.1998 passed by the trial court was confirmed in interim injunction application.

(2). As per the facts the petitioner plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents in regard to the land khasra No.1180 measuring 1.19 Hectors situated in village Gadhi Gopalpura and other land as mentioned in the suit. It was stated that earlier this land was in the khatedari of one Ram Swaroop and the land was purchased by the present petitioner- plaintiffs on 20.3.1992 from respondent No. 2 Ram Swaroop and were also put in possession. The defendant madan was also having half share in the land Khasra No. 1180. Even though the agreement is said to have been entered into between the parties, but sale- deed was not executed for certain reasons and, therefore, suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the present petitioners along with the application for temporary injunction. The defendants had denied the execution of agreement to sell. Even the so called seller Ram Swaroop had also opposed the suit on the ground of limitation. The temporary injunction application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 23.11.1998. On appeal having been filed the Additional District Judge also dismissed the same on 12.1.1999.

(3). It is the contention of the petitioner that even the suit filed by the other defendants before the SDO had also been dismissed and for the reason that the possession had already been proved to be in the hands of the petitioner-plaintiff and the matter of legality of agreement to sell was still to be gone into and for the reason that the plaintiff had already part 2nd with the consideration amount as mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell, the petitioner submits that in such situation and as per the settled law, the plaintiff ought to have been granted the stay order and for the proposition relies on a judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Kanwar and Anr. vs. Suraj Prasad Prasad Gupta (1), wherein it was held that unregistered agreement to sell land is admissible in evidence under proviso of Sec. 49 of the Registration Act,1908.

(4). Reliance is also placed on the judgment reported in the case of Deenanath vs. Chuni Lal (2), wherein it was held that there was no necessity to determine the question of vendors title and the fact that the tile which the purchaser may acquire might be defeasible by sons of defendants was no ground for refusing specific performance if the purchaser was willing to take such title as the vendors had.

(5). Counsel for the respondent defendants relies on the judgment of his court in the case of Smt. Devi vs. Banwari Lal (3), on the fact that Sec. 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act does not confer right on transferee to move application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of unregistered agreement for sale of agriculture land. It only creates estoppel against transferor from enforcing any right in respect of the property against transferee. It was further held that u/Sec. 17(f) of the Registration act, the transferee does not get any right to claim possession or any other right in the property on the basis of an unregistered agreement for sale. Such unregistered agreement for sale conferred a statutory right on a transferee to defend his possession in a suit for recovery of possession filed by transferor or any other person claiming under him.

(6). Yet in another judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Jamna Bai vs. Tulsi Ram (4), it was held that production of unregistered document is not eligible for evidence even for collateral purposes.

(7). Reliance is also placed in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanaga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document