1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 27.1.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Court below has rejected the Miscellaneous Appeal of petitioner filed under Order 43 rule 1 CPC and confirmed the order of trial Court dated 5.2.2010, whereby application of petitioner under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC was rejected by trial Court.

2. Shri B. Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that a suit for specific performance was filed against respondents No.1 to 4 and permanent injunction was sought against respondent No.5 Municipal Council. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC, seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.5. The said application was rejected by trial Court on 5.2.2010.

3. The petitioner contends that the trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the agreement to sell which was executed by husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4 is not properly stamped and it is an unregistered document. Hence, it is not admissible in evidence. In addition, the trial Court held that possession of petitioner over the suit plot is not legal. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to get injunction.

4. Shri Pandey urged that if document is unstamped or unsufficiently stamped, the proper procedure is to impound it and sent to Collector under section 40 of Stamp Act. Reliance is placed on 2009(4) MPHT 357 Bhismat Pandey v. Phoola and others. It is urged that this Court in Bhismat Pandey (supra), relied on the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 427 (Para 13 and 14) (Preeti Subba Rao v. Anumala S. Narendra). Shri Pandey further argued that respondents No.1 to 4 were exparte before the Court below and main contesting party was respondent No.5. Thus, Court below was not required to consider the agreement at the stage of considering injunction application. He submits that possession is admitted by respondent No.5. Hence, a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience etc. were in favour of plaintiff. Lastly, it is urged that Courts below have committed an error of law in not granting injunction.

5. Prayer is opposed by Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The respondents contended that the specific case of respondent No.5 is that the petitioner has encroached upon a public land. He has no legal right or title over the suit land. Reliance is placed on (1994)5 SCC 547 (Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India). Shri Bhardwaj further contended that the alleged agreement to sell was executed on 1.2.2004 with Bhishma Pratap Singh. It is noteworthy that whole amount of consideration is paid and possession of disputed land is shown to have been delivered, no reason has been assigned as to why sale deed has not been executed. This shows that said agreement is a fake document.

6. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 further stated that in the agreement aforesaid, the source and flow of title is not mentioned. How Bhishma Pratap Singh became owner of the disputed property, is not shown. The conduct of parties show that their story is not trustworthy. By placing reliance on Page 36 and 37, it is urged that name of Amit Dixit/petitioner is mentioned. Name of Bhishma Pratap Singh is nowhere mentioned in the said document and, therefore, the said document does not inspire any confidence. It is totally unreliable. He cited 2015 (2) JLJ 101 (Rajesh Mehra v. Ram Vilas Singh) in this regard.

7. Shri Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel further contends that the agreement to sell dated 1.2.2004 is neither properly stamped nor registered. Thus, it cannot be used for any purpose. By taking this Court to section 35 of Stamp Act, section 49 of Registration Act and judgment of this Court in 2012 (3) MPLJ 555 (Khushi Ram Awasthy v. Saheb Singh), he argued that the said agreement cannot be relied on for any purpose. He also relied o