Hon’ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This first appeal from order is directed by the appellants/defendants against order dated 7.8.2015 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi passed in Original Suit No. 452 of 2014 (Sudha Land Ventures and Homes Private Limited v. Vinod Kumar and others), whereby on a application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and the appellants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The facts leading to the filing of appeal are narrated in nutshell as follows:

Sudha Land Ventures and Homes Private Limited (in short, respondent-plaintiff) filed aforesaid suit with the averment that late Ghanshyam, father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and Smt. Shanti Devi, their mother executed unregistered sale-deed on 21.2.2014 in respect of agricultural plot Nos. 1303 and 1299 of Khata No. 00089 to the extent of half share for the consideration of Rs 7,92,000/-. Late Ghanshyam also executed another sale-deed in respect of agricultural plot Nos. 1304, 1305, 718/2, 719M, 1298 and 1297 ((3/4 share)), Khasra Nos. 00039 and 00026 for sale consideration of Rs. 18,72,000/-. Aforesaid two sale-deeds were presented for registration before Sub-Registrar on 26.3.2014. Late Ghanshyam and Smt. Shanti Devi, left the registry office under impression that they will come back after paying call of nature.

4. The appellants filed their written statement and denied the execution of two sale-deeds. They stated that late Ghanshyam was a kidney patient and he just received Rs. 10,00,000/- as loan to meet out expenses of treatment and under the pressure of respondent they signed some blank papers under impression that same may be used for collateral purpose as security to the loan so received. On 26.3.2014, they came to know that respondent is fraudulently trying to get registered collateral unregistered security deeds as sale-deeds.

5. An application paper No. 6-C under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C. was moved by the respondent for grant of temporary injunction and the appellants filed objection paper No. 22-C and 38-C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi opined that two unregistered sale-deeds may be read in evidence for collateral purposes. He further opined that possession of aforesaid plots was already delivered through unregistered sale-deeds on their date of execution i.e.21.2.2014 and 22.2.2014 and, therefore, respondent being in possession of plots has prima facie made out a case for temporary injunction. With these observations, the impugned order dated 7.8.2015 was passed restraining the appellants to interfere in possession of respondent on aforesaid plots.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants filed this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that in the suit respondent has prayed permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering in possession as well as for mandatory injunction directing the appellants to appear in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of two sale-deeds dated 21.2.2014 and 22.2.2014 and as such without relief of declaration the suit is not maintainable. Learned trial judge has committed palpable error in passing the impugned order on temporary injunction application.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submit that sale consideration has been paid by respondent and received by the appellants. Apart from it, he states that possession has been delivered on the date of execution of sale-deeds and in case the appellants are not restrained, the respondent will suffer irreparable loss.

9. In the background of aforesaid facts, the point which emerges for consideration is whether suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions can be decreed on the basis of unregistered sale-deeds?

10. Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 reads as under:

“17. Documents of which registration is compulsory;

(