The central legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment made under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not validate an unregistered agreement for sale dated 09.05.1994, and the admissibility of the document is impacted by the provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamps Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Before this Court ventures to deal with the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the appellants, in relation to the substantial questions of law, which has been raised by him in the present Second Appeal, it becomes inevitable for this Court to deal with the pleading, which had been raised by the respondents herein in Civil Suit No. 92 of 2012, Inder Singh and Another vs. Ghamand Singh and Others, as it stood instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

2. The Suit, as instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District Dehradun, on 13.07.2012, it was in relation to the property, which was described therein at the foot of the plaint, lying in Khata No. 57, khasra No. 1208 having a total area of 0.026 hectares and khata No. 48 khasra No. 182 (kha) having an area of 0.0360 hectares, lying in Village Jolly Grant, Baruwala, District Dehradun (hereinafter to be called as “property in dispute”).

3. As a consequence of the institution of the Suit in question on 13.07.2022, the plaintiffs, who are the real brothers have filed the suit for the grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein, not to interfere over the property, as described at the foot of the plaint and further a decree was sought for ejectment and recovery of possession in favor of the plaintiffs, as against the defendants or from any persons who were claiming under them. The relief as sought in the plaint is extracted hereunder:

“Plaintiff prays as follows:

(i) A decree of perpetual injunction be issued restraining the Defendants and all persons claiming through or under him not to interfere over the open land of the Plaintiffs to the suit property in Plaint.

(ii) A decree of ejectment and recovery of possession be issued in favour of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants directing the Defendants and all persons claiming through or under them to deliver the possession of the Shops in suit to the Plaintiff and if Defendants fail to deliver the possession the same may be delivered by the Court at the expenses of the Defendants.

(iii) Cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

(iv) Any other relief which the learned court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be also be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.”

4. The suit proceeded on merits and the defendants upon being noticed had filed their written statement being paper No. 12(kha) and they have denied the plaintiffs contentions and particularly, so far as the averments made in Para 4 of the plaint, which has been answered in the written statement in Para 7 of the written statement, with regards to the effect of the unregistered agreement dated 09.05.1994, which in fact was the foundation of the suit in question in relation to the property in dispute, for claiming their right as claimed in the suit based on an unregistered agreement dated 09.05.1994.

5. The plaintiffs have admittedly come up with the case in the plaint, that the defendants have already instituted a Suit, being Suit No. 337 of 2007, Ghamand Singh and Others vs. Inder Singh and Another, before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun and the said suit, a decree was sought for specific performance of an unregistered agreement for sale dated 09.05.1994 and the said suit, after its decision, which was rendered on 18.05.2012, the suit of the defendants/appellants for specific performance of an unregistered agreement for sale has been rejected.

6. Upon rejection of the plaint, the plaintiffs appellants herein, had filed a Civil Appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2012, in which it has been pleaded in the Second Appeal without giving the details in pleadings as to what consequences did the civil appeal reached, though during the course of argument of the Second Appeal, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants