The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of an insufficiently stamped and unregistered agreement as evidence of part performance of contract under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the need to discourage cantankerous litigation causing delay in execution of decrees.

This revision, under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the Code'), has been preferred against the order dated 5-4-2011 passed by 12th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/2010, affirming the order dated 12-7-2006 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class I, in Execution Case No. 229-A/94.

2. By the order dated 12-7-2006 (supra), the objection raised by the petitioner, under Order 21, Rule 97 read with section 105 of the Code, against execution of decree dated 24-10-1994 passed by Civil Judge Class I in Civil Suit No. 229-A/94 in favour of respondent No. 1, Sahab Singh (for short 'R1') and against the respondent No. 2, Beni Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'R2'), was rejected. It was a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of suit land whereas the objection was raised inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had been in a lawful possession thereof since 1979.

3. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the petitioner had preferred a second appeal contending that there was a mistake on the part of the Counsel to prefer an appeal, under Order 43, Rule 1(ja) of the Code, against the order dated 12-7-2006 and on the part of the Appellate Court as well in treating the same as a miscellaneous appeal. However, in view of the embargo created by section 104 of the Code, the second appeal was rejected, vide order dated 13-7-2011 passed in Second Appeal No. 516/11, as not maintainable. The review application registered as R.P. No. 361/11 was also dismissed, vide order dated 18-8-2011 and the SLP (Civil) No. 27741/11 preferred against that order has also been dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 1-1-2011.

4. According to the petitioner, he had purchased the plot of land in dispute and the kuchha house constructed thereon from R2 on 1-1-1979 by way of a mutual settlement (Annexure A-1). Thereafter, on 16-1-1979, R2 had also executed an agreement to sell the property (Annexure A-2). However, R1, knowing fully well about the aforesaid transaction, filed the suit without impleading him as party and obtained the decree in question despite the fact that in the meanwhile, he had constructed house and shops over the plot after securing the loan from bank and obtaining building permission from the Municipal Corporation. After coming to know about the judgment and decree dated 24-10-94 passed in favour of R1, he instituted a suit registered as Civil Suit No. 9-A/98 for a declaration that the same were not binding upon him. But, the suit was dismissed, vide order dated 22-11-2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A/1998, as not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code. Ultimately, on 11-3-2002, R2 executed registered sale-deed relating to the suit property in his favour.

5. The order dated 12-7-2006 (above), rejecting the objection as collusive, was based on the following fact findings -

(i) The objector, the petitioner here, who is none other than the brother-in-law of R2, was well aware of the civil suit wherein the decree in question was passed.

(ii) In order to deprive R1 of the fruits of the decree, the judgment debtor, viz. R2 had handed over the possession of the suit property to the petitioner and had also permitted him to raise construction.

6. A bare perusal of the appellate order passed on 5-4-2011 (supra), would reveal that all the material aspects of the matter, whether legal or factual, have already been considered in a right perspective. While concurring with the findings of facts, learned ADJ also highlighted the admissions made by the petitioner to the effect that (a) the petitioner used to come to the Civil Court to attend the dates of hearing in the suit, and (b) no consideration was paid by the petitioner to R2 at the time of execution of the sale deed on 11-3-2002. Accordingly, in the light of the ratio laid down in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust, AIR 1998 SC 1754 that has been re-affirmed in Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram, 2008(4) MPLJ