The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered agreement cannot cancel a registered sale deed as per the Registration Act, 1908, and a suit for mere declaration without claiming alternative relief of injunction or possession is not maintainable.

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 3.10.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which judgment and decree dated 15.11.1986 of the lower court, dismissing the suit of plaintiff Amar Singh, respondent herein, for seeking a decree for declaration claiming cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.5.1965 and mutation No.1384 in respect of the suit land, were reversed and, consequently, suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Sequelly, sale deed dated 10.5.1965 as also mutation No.1384 sanctioned thereafter in respect of the suit land were held to be void, ineffective and inoperative qua the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, respondent herein.

2. As per the case of the respondent/plaintiff, defendant Kishan Chand, appellant herein, had purchased land from him vide sale deed of 10.5.1965. At the time of delivery of possession to the defendant, it was discovered by the parties that the sale deed had inadvertently been effected in respect of unwanted Khasra numbers. The defendant had refused to take physical possession of the land. Sequelly, the parties mutually agreed to revoke the sale deed. Such settlement of the parties was caged in a document dated 23.12.1983. In terms of this agreement between the parties, a sale deed in respect of another land measuring 2 Kanals adjoining to the land of the defendant, was to be effected by the plaintiff and the defendant was not to act upon the mutation sanctioned in his name on the basis of sale deed dated 10.5.1965. When the defendant started drifting away from the settlement, the plaintiff had brought the suit for enforcement of the settlement made vide agreement dated 23.12.1983.

3. The defendant, appellant herein, had contested the suit tooth and nail and claimed the subsequent settlement of 23.12.1983 to be only a paper transaction. Legality and validity of sale deed as also of the mutation sanctioned thereto, was asserted. It is averred that possession of the suit land was delivered to the defendant who is now in actual possession thereof. Dismissal of the suit was sought.

4. No replication to the written statement was preferred by the plaintiff. Vide order dated 17.2.1986 the lower court had settled the following issues for adjudication of rival claims of the parties:

1. Whether the parties mutually agreed to revoke the sale deed dated 10.5.1965 vide agreement dated 23.12.1983? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit property correctly for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

7. Whether the alleged agreement dated 23.12.1983 is the result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPD

8. Relief.

5. After receiving oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and providing a hearing to their respective counsel, issues No.1 to 6 were decided against the plaintiff, whereas issue No.7 was decided against the defendant and consequently, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the lower court vide judgment dated 15.11.1986. The decree had followed.

6. The decree of the lower court was taken in appeal by the plaintiff. Agreeing with the claim of the plaintiff, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1986 of the lower court, his suit was decreed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 3.10.1987.

7. In this Regular Second Appeal, adjudication made by the first appellate court is under attack. It is claimed by the defendant, appellant herein, that agreement dated 23.12.1983 (Ex.P3) does not create or extinguish any right of the parties because it could have been possible only vide a registered document. Questioning enforceability of the document (Ex.P3), it is claimed that the suit for mere declaration