The main legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered documents can be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, as per the interpretation of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ.

1. This first appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.22-A/12. The said suit was filed by the appellant for relief of specific performance of agreement executed between the parties on 17.2.2010, in respect of property situated in Ward No.32, P.H. No.22, B.No.177, R.N.M. Chhindwara-1. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants.

2. The trial Court framed issues relevant to the relief claimed in the suit. As regards the issue whether the suit agreement was executed between the parties, the same has been answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Even the issue of readiness and willingness has been answered in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record has also noticed that the defendants have only questioned the value of the property in the entire cross examination and not the factum of execution of the agreement or about their commitment to transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff. Although, the trial Court in the impugned judgment answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, rejected the relief of specific performance on the sole ground that the agreement executed between the parties was unregistered document and as such it was inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court in support of that opinion has placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Narbada Prasad Agrawal v. Omprakash Bhavsar, 2009 (1) MPWN 29 and on another decision in the case of Kailashchandra v. Dwarkadheesh and others, 2013 (4) MPHT 432. As a result, the suit came to be dismissed with direction to the respondents/defendants to refund the earnest money amount received by them at the time of execution of the agreement along with interest @ 6% per annum thereon with costs of the suit. This decree is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

3. After the notice of appeal was served on the Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 3, the respondents filed cross objection under Order 41, Rule 22 on 7.7.2014, bearing Document No.4697/2014. Notably, the cross objection is only about the quantum of costs and the direction to refund the earnest money amount with interest. No other ground has been taken in the cross objection, in particular, to question the finding of the trial Court on the other relevant issues such as factum of execution of agreement and on readiness and willingness to perform the obligation under the said agreement of the plaintiff.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the trial Court is in the teeth of Supreme Court's decision in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and others, 2010 (3) MPLJ 500. According to the appellant, this decision was pressed into service before the trial Court but the trial Court has failed to analyze the same, though directly on the point and in favour of the appellant. Further, as the cross objection has been filed by the defendant limited to the direction to refund the earnest money amount along with interest and costs of the suit, no other issue arises for consideration of this Court; and that if the appellant succeeds in questioning the erroneous view taken by the Trial Court, must succeed in getting complete relief as prayed in the suit-of decree of specific performance.

5. Counsel for the respondent in his argument did make an unsuccessful and feeble attempt to question the finding recorded by the trial Court on other issues, besides the grounds urged in the cross objection filed by the defendant.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, the moot question which arise for our reconsideration is, whether the opinion recorded by the trial Court that the suit agreement being unregistered document, relief of specific performance cannot be granted to the plaintiff, is correct?

7. We find force in the submission of the appellant that the only issue that needs to be decided in the