Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, Advocate, for appellant; and Sri Siddharth and Sri A.K. Singh, Advocates, for respondents.

2. This is plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 41 of 1991 initially for seeking permanent injunction. Subsequently with the amendment of plaint, the plaintiff sought specific performance of contract for sale of disputed property executed on 12.11.1976 and also to enforce a private settlement between the parties dated 7.2.1991. Trial Court decreed the suit but Lower Appellate Court has reversed the decree of Trial Court, in appeal, and has dismissed the suit.

3. This Court formulated following substantial questions of law, while hearing this appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.:

"Whether Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended to its application to the State of U.P. w.e.f. 1.1.1977 requires even the understanding/compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties to resolve the issue of execution of the sale-deed in terms of the original agreement to sell dated 12.11.1976 to be compulsorily registered inasmuch it was not an independent document separate from the original agree