JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal J.

Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction for direction to respondent-defendant to get the sale deed dated 16.12.1986 registered on the grounds that the parties entered into an agreement to sell suit land for a sale consideration of Rs.24,000/- and parties executed the sale deed and sale deed was to be presented before Sub Registrar for registration but respondent-defendant refused to get the sale deed got registered. Appellant-plaintiffs moved application under Section 36 of Indian Registration Act before Sub-Registrar where respondent-defendant made statement that he would get the sale deed registered but thereafter resiled, hence the suit. Notice of the suit was served upon respondent-defendant, who contested the same. He denied that there was an agreement to sell suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.24,000/- and pleaded that suit land can fetch a price of Rs.50,000/- per acre and that respondent-defendant agreed to sell suit land to one Lal Singh @ Sucha Singh for a consideration of Rs.70,000/- and executed agreement to sell in favour of Lal Singh on 30.10.1986 and date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 01.12.1986. Father of the plaintiff purchased some papers in the name of the defendant who acted in good faith and he along with Lal Singh approached defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on the basis of agreement to sell dated 03.10.1986 after receipt of remaining balance consideration of Rs.62,000/-. Defendant agreed and executed the sale deed for total consideration of Rs.70,000/- but plaintiffs and their father along with Lal Singh scribed the sale deed for a total consideration of Rs.24,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/- in violation of terms of the agreement and got thumb impressions on some papers which were never read over to him. Defendants put his thumb impressions on account of misrepresentation and concealment of facts being an illiterate person. When he came to know that sale deed has not been got scribed as per the terms of agreement dated 03.10.1986, he refused to get the same registered. Plaintiffs moved application before Sub-Registrar. Defendant made statement denying the execution of the sale deed as the same was not scribed in terms of agreement dated 03.10.1986. The application was dismissed by the Sub-Registrar. Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

2. Plaintiff filed replication reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the averments of the written statement.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

2) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction ?OPD

3) Whether the defendant executed a sale deed of the land in disputed in favour ofthe plaintiffs?OPP.

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP

5) Relief.

4. After affording opportunities to the parties to lead evidence the learned Sub Judge First Class, Sultanpur Lodhi decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff and directed defendant to execute the sale deed within a period of one month failing which appellant-plaintiffs can get the sale deed registered through Court of law.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed, respondent-defendant preferred the appeal before District Judge, Kapurthala. Learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala allowed the appeal by observing that sale deed Ex.P1 being unregistered document can be taken at the most as agreement to sell and that compromise Ex.P6 during the pendency of the suit does not amount to adjustment of the suit and that findings on issues No. 1 and 4 were set aside in view of the same being against the provisions of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed, the present appeal has been filed.

7. Notice of motion was issued and the records were requisitioned.

8. I have heard learned