1. This writ petition by defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28.7.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.40A/2015 by the trial Court. The application objecting to the admissibility of the agreement to sell dated 16.3.2015 for want of registration in view of section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act, 1908 (For short, 1908 Act') under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act, 2009 (in section 17 of the Act) which reads as under:

17. Documents of which registration is compulsory - (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely : -

(f) any document which purports or operates to effect any contract for sale of any immovable property.”

has been rejected by the trial Court, on the premise that in the light of the proviso to section 49 of the 1908 Act, the unregistered agreement to sell can be looked into in a contract for agreement to sell as contemplated. Hence, for want of registration, the document cannot be ignored.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while criticizing the impugned order contends that once by way of Madhya Pradesh State amendment, section 17(1)(f) has been incorporated in the 1908 Act with the assent of the President of India, therefore, in the light of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the State amendment shall prevail over the existing proviso to section 49 of the 1908 Act. Hence, for want of registration of the agreement to sell, the same cannot be used as a piece of evidence in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. According to him, the proviso to section 49 of the 1908 Act has no relevance or applicable. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011)7 SCC 616 A. Subhash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another to bolster his submission.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that similar arguments were advanced before coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore reported in 2015(2) MPLJ 645 Manish and another v. Anil Kumar s/o Kaluramji Patidar and others and this Court has rejected such contentions holding that there is no direct inconsistency between the provisions as contained under section 17(1)(f) and proviso to section 49 of the 1908 Act, as such, both provision can be harmoniously read. It is submitted that the proviso to section 49 of the 1908 Act only contemplates that unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance and not beyond that. Therefore, the unregistered agreement to sell can be acted upon for the aforesaid purpose as provided for. As such, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard.

5. The Registration Act, 1908 is a central legislation enacted by the parliament in the field of registration of deeds and documents as detailed in sl.No.6 of the concurrent list. Section 17 thereof provides that registration of documents is compulsory and section 49 provides for effect of non-registration of document required to be registered. The proviso appended thereto is relevant which reads as under:

“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.- No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall —

Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific per