JUDGEMENT :- It is a very unfortunate case that two courts below have not even read and properly construed Ex. P/1 on which the suit was based, even though the suit was dismissed by the learned appellate Court, reversing the decree passed by the trial Court.

2. On reading the pleadings, I have little doubt that plaintiff's main plea was founded on the doctrine of part-performance which is mentioned in categorical terms in para 3 of the plaint. On the basis of this plea, the plaintiff was merely entitled to a decree of permanent injunction to protect his possession although he laid a tall claim for specific performance of contract on the footing that Ex. P/1 was an agreement to sell the suit land. I have myself read the document with counsel for the parties but I am unable to satisfy myself that it is any thing else than a sale-deed. However, Ex. P/1 being an unregistered document, the sale must fail.

3. There is a very clear averment in the description itself that it was a "BIKRINAMA" and further fact is that the full consideration

of Rs. 600/- was duly paid for the suit land which is 5 bighas and odd in area. No doubt at all is left about its character in that parties meant