Plaintiff must take steps for compulsory registration of document.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in A.S.No.446 of 1987 rendered on 12. 1988.

2. Thesuit was filed by the plaintiff for direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and on appeal, the lower appellate court while holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the enforcement of the agreement, however, found that the plaintiff is entitled to protect her possession under Sec.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. No appeal was preferred against the said finding by the defendant, who ought to be aggrieved by the said judgment. Therefore, it is unnecessary to be considered whether in the circumstances, such a decree passed by the lower appellate court is tenable in law.

3. At the time when the appeal was admitted, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:

“Whether the courts below were right in denying the plaintiff the relief of specific performance merely on the ground of delay, when no prejudice could be caused to the other side”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Jiwan Lal v. Brij Mohan A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 559 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Arjuna Mudaliar v. Lakshmi Ammal (1948)2 MLJ. 271 for the position that from long delay alone without adding further, an abandonment of rights could not be presumed, and that when it is not likely to cause prejudice to other parties exclusive for specific performance cannot be disputed on the short ground of delay.

5. The above two propositions would apply, if the suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The document in question is in Telugu, which has been marked as Ex.A-3. It is a very short instrument that reads as follows:

“On this day for my necessities, to wit, for my family expenses the property in my occupation in which I have right is sold to you of my own accord after receiving a consideration of Rs.2,500. Since I have received the entire sale consideration the house in which I am residing and also having right in it is delivered to you on this day. Henceforth, yourself and your heirs shall be entitled to enjoy the schedule mentioned property from generation to generation. Either myself or my heirs shall be entitled to claim any right in the property. I have executed the sale deed of my own accord.”

The document does not purport to be an agreement of sale. On the other hand it purports to be a sale deed. The terms are clear that it is specifically stated that the sale deed has been executed and it also shows that the entire consideration has been received. It further states that possession has been delivered. There is nothing more to be done, with reference to the transaction, except the registration of the same. There is nothing mentioned about the registration. It is for the person, who buys the property to have the document registered and call upon the vendor to register document. Nothing has been mentioned in the plaint about this. Nor it is alleged that the defendant in spite of demand by the plaintiff, refused to come and have the sale deed registered. It is also to be pointed out that already plaintiff had purchased a portion of the property forming part of the property and situate by the side of the suit property, under a sale deed. Neither in paragraph 4 nor in paragraph 5 of the plaint, any allegation is made that it is only an agreement of sale and that there remained something more for performance and that something more was to be performed by the defendant and that the defendant failed to perform the same. On the other hand it refers to the transaction of the sale, the receipt of entire consideration and the handing over of possession and the transfer of name in the registry of the Corporation Register. It is only in 1984, a