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 agreement for the performance of which the suit was filed?"

4. The facts in brief giving rise to dispute in question may be summarized as under.

5. Plait case set up by plaintiff is that defendant no. 1 Chatar Singh was a bhumidhar having transferable rights of property in dispute, details whereof were given on the foot of plaint. The defendant no. 1 purchased the said land vide sale-deed dated 12.9.1966 from previous owner Sri Amir Chand for a total consideration of Rs. 2720/-. An agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 on 12.11.1976 for transfer of aforesaid property to plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Entire amount of consideration was paid by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 at the time of execution of agreement and in part performance thereof, physical and vacant possession of land was delivered by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff. As per the term of agreement, sale-deed of land was to be executed within 15 years from the date of agreement, at the option of plaintiff and defendant no. 1, who was supposed to obtain permission to sale property in dispute, from competent authority. It was necessary for execution of sale-deed. The sale-deed dated 12.9.1966, whereby defendant no. 1 had purchased the land from original owner, was also handed over by him to the plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, sale-deed could not be executed since defendant no. 1 had not obtain permission from competent authority to sell the land. Plaintiff came to know subsequently that defendant no. 1 has sold his house and other property and has settled at Meerut and with the collusion of defendant no. 2 want to get a sale-deed executed in favour of defendant no. 2. Having got this knowledge plaintiff, with some respective persons of Panchayat, met defendant no. 1. A settlement was written, duly signed by parties, including the persons who formed Panchayat, on 7.2.1991, wherein it was settled that plaintiff will pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant no. 1 who shall execute sale-deed in respect to land in question in favour of plaintiff. However, plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction for restraining defendant no. 1 from executing any sale-deed in respect to land in question and not to interfere in the possession of plaintiff.

7. The suit was presented in the Court below vide plaint dated 26.2.1991 and when suit was pending, defendant no. 1 transferred the land in question by way of sale deed dated 5.4.1991 to defendants no. 2 to 6, whereafter plaint was got amended by insertion of para 12-A and 12B and relief of specific performance of contract was also added.

8. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit by pleading that no agreement was executed by him on 12.11.1976 and the