The central legal point established is that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot confer any title or transfer any interest in immovable property, and the requirement of a registered sale deed under the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act must be fulfilled for the transfer of property.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

CM-16872-2019 & CM-16870-2019

1. For the reasons stated therein, the application for condonation of delay in refiling and filing the appeal is allowed. Delay of 61 days in refiling and 15 days in filing the appeal are condoned.

CM-16871-2019

2. The Court fee has already been made good. The present application is disposed off as infructuous.

RSA-5904-2019

3. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby their suit for specific performance has been dismissed.

4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 regarding a house built on land bearing Khata No.303/479, Khasra No.1466/1-0, 1641/0-2, measuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswas to the extent of 1/20 share situated at village Batriana for a total sum of Rs. 60,000/- and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- being the total amount of sale consideration paid by them to the defendant-respondent, alongwith costs and interest, as also a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondent from dispossessing or interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-appellants over the suit property or selling, mortgaging or transferring it to any other person except the plaintiff-appellants. It was averred that the defendant-respondent had entered into an agreement to sell the suit house along with all rights of share of 'rasta' etc. with the plaintiff-appellants vide agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and that the defendant-respondent had received the total sale consideration amount from the plaintiff-appellants in the presence of witnesses. It was further averred that the defendant-respondent had delivered the physical possession of the suit house to the plaintiff-appellants and as such they were in possession of the same since the date of execution of agreement to sell. As per the plaintiff-appellants the defendant-respondent had agreed to execute the sale deed of the suit house and that the plaintiff-appellants were still ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement but the defendant-respondent had flatly refused to admit their claim. Hence, the present suit. The defendant-respondent in his written statement took the pleas that the alleged agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 is not admissible in evidence being an unregistered document, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants is not maintainable and they have no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit. It was the stand taken that the defendant-respondent neither entered into any agreement to sell nor any alleged agreement was executed and that the defendant-respondent had not handed over any possession of the suit house to the plaintiff-appellants. It has been replied that the defendant-respondent is the owner and in possession of the suit house and that no alleged amount of Rs. 60,000/- was ever received by the defendant-respondent and that the alleged agreement does not bear the thumb impression of the defendant-respondent. Replication to the written statement of was filed and on the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 has been executed between the parties ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 as detailed in the plaint ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of Rs. 60,000/- along with cost of the suit and future interest 2 12% per annum in the alternative ? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable ? OPD Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act ? OPD

7. Relief.

5. The