ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.08.2011 passed in a memo filed by the first respondent and the plaintiff in O.S.No.391/2009 on the file of the Ist Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant seeking to reject the unregistered agreement of sale, which was sought to be marked by the first respondent/plaintiff.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and for a relief of permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 07.05.2006. As per the case of the plaintiff, pursuant to the agreement of sale, the possession of the property was also handed over to the plaintiff. The pleadings were completed, issues were framed and the case was at the stage of trial.

3. The plaintiff was in the box and the unregistered agreement of sale was sought to be marked as a document. This was objected by the petitioner/defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded part performance under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore, the sale agreement must be necessarily registered and without the same, the same should not be marked as a document. The Court below took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff had given up the relief of injunction and was only prosecuting the suit for the relief of specific performance. Therefore, the Court below took into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and others reported in 2010 (2) TLNJ 471 and came to a conclusion that even an unregistered sale agreement can be marked and it can be looked into for collateral purpose.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even though the first respondent/plaintiff had given up the relief of permanent injunction, the entire pleadings in the plaint shows that the plaintiff had taken possession of the property pursuant to the sale agreement and therefore, the case will squarely come under Section 53(A) of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the agreement cannot be admitted without the same being registered. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Court below went wrong in rejecting the objections made by the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has specifically given up the relief of permanent injunction and the suit is prosecuted only for the relief of specific performance. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below took into consideration the impact of Section 53(A) of the Act and has given a categorical finding that the unregistered sale agreement can be marked and can be relied upon for collateral purposes. Hence, absolutely, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the Court below and this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The first respondent/plaintiff had initially filed a suit claiming for the relief of specific performance and for permanent injunction. It is true that the first respondent/plaintiff had claimed possession of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 07.05.2006 executed in his favour. The relief of permanent injunction was subsequently given up. What is now being prosecuted by the first respondent/plaintiff is only the relief of specific performance.

8. Under such circumstances, it should be seen whether the agreement of sale requires to be registered in order to be marked before the Court below and relied upon. It is seen that this unregistered agreement of sale had come into force prior to the amendment of the Regist