JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This is a plaintiff's First Appeal, which has been preferred by the appellant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 96 of the C.P.C., for the purposes of challenging the judgment and decree dated 8th September, 2008, which was rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udham Singh Nagar, in Original Suit No. 85 of 2006, Gupta Agro Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh and others. By virtue of the impugned judgment and decree, which is under challenge in the present First Appeal, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the Suit, consequently, the present First Appeal.

2. Brief facts, which are required to be considered in the First Appeal, in question, are that admittedly, the defendant/respondents, herein, were the bhumidhars of the piece of an agricultural land, which was lying in Khata No. 00142, Khasra No. 710, having an area of 1.326 hectares, i.e. equivalent to 3.28 acres of land in Village Shimla Pitore, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. The aforesaid defendants/respondents are said to have, on 31st December, 2005, entered into an unregistered notorized agreement for sale, which was executed in favour of one Mr. Surendra Kumar Gupta S/o Badri Prasad Gupta, Director, Gupta Agro Ventures Pvt. Ltd..

4. As per the covenants of the said agreement for sale, though unregistered, the sale deed was agreed to be executed, as in relation to the property, the description of which was more particularly given in para 7 of the agreement for sale, but since, the same was not executed as agreed, as such, the plaintiff/appellant, herein, on 28th April, 2006, is shown to have instituted a Suit for the grant of decree of permanent injunction, as against the defendants/ respondents, in relation to the property as described above, and a declaration was also sought to the effect that the plaintiff, happens to be the owner of the property and they have also sought a decree for specific performance of the said unregistered agreement for sale, which was executed between them on 31st December, 2005.

5. As per the plaint averments, which was not instituted by the parties to the agreement for sale, but rather by M/s Gupta Agro Ventures Pvt. Ltd., which was altogether a distinct legal entity and a juristic person. In the plaint averments, it was contended that when despite of having parted of with the partial sale consideration as agreed, when the sale deed was not executed by 31st March, 2006, as it was an agreed date, as per the terms of the agreement, the notices were issued and when despite of the service of notice, when the same was not executed, it was contended that on 19th April, 2006, the plaintiff acquired the rights and a cause of action arose for him to file the Suit for the aforesaid relief for the grant of decree of permanent injunction and for specific performance.

6. The defendants/respondents were noticed, and in pursuance to the notice, which were issued to them, they have filed their written statement on 24th May, 2006, denying the plaint averments and particularly, a specific plea has been taken in para 13 and 22 of the written statement with regard to the amendment which were carried in the provisions, contained under Section 154 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, imposing the restrictions, upon conveying the agricultural property, which has been recorded as an agricultural land and, particularly, with regard to the fact and from the perspective that an unregistered agreement for sale of an immovable property, the registration of which, was mandatory as per the terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act, no right and title could be conferred on the appellant nor there was any cause for him to institute the Suit, because of the embargo created under Section 45 (e) (i) (j) of the Specific Performance Act. Later on, the plaint was amended for altogether a different reason the Suit itself, which have no any relevance for the purposes of deciding the present First Appeal.

7. Bef