IMPORTANT POINTS
An unregistered agreement would be admissible as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance.
Section 53A of the TP Act can be invoked on the basis of unregistered agreement to sale.
Appellate Court cannot reassess the entire evidence so as to come to its own conclusion contrary to that of the trial court unless it is perverse.

S.H. Vora, J.—With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, present Appeal from Order is taken up for final hearing.

2. Challenge in the present Appeal from Order preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below injunction application Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 2015 whereby, the learned trial Judge allowed injunction application Exh. 5 preferred by respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff.

3. Parties to the present Appeal from Order would be hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the plaint.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has agreed to purchase land bearing Block No. 236, Survey No. 167 situated at Village: Parab, Taluka: Kamrej, District: Surat from defendant No. 1 on 02.11.2008 in consideration of Rs. 51 lacs. That, amount of Rs. 1 lac was paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 as token money in cash and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff would handover rest of the payment to defendant No. 1 after title clearance is obtained. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 12.12.2012, the plaintiff paid further consideration to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs to defendant No. 1 in cash and sale agreement dated 12.12.2012 came to be executed and notarized. That, the total amount of consideration of Rs. 51 lacs has been fixed. That, the plaintiff, in all, paid Rs. 26 lacs in cash and he was and is ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 25 lacs to defendant No. 1. It is the case of the plaintiff that title deed, namely, original sale deed and possession of the subject land was handed over to the plaintiff. That, one Special Civil Suit No. 405 of 2008 with reference to the sale deed dated 22.02.2008 in favour of the defendant No. 1 being under challenge and due to pendency of the said suit, dispute was not solved and, therefore, defendant No. 1 has not executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Despite such facts, defendant No. 1 sold the subject land to defendant No. 2 i.e. respondent No. 3 herein and defendant No. 3 - appellant herein by executing registered sale deed on 03.09.2014 for consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-.

5. Upon service of summons to the defendants, defendant No. 1 resisted the plaint and denied each and every averment made in the plaint and further alleged that the plaintiff has filed false suit by creating forged documents. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that he has purchased the subject land from original owner - Mr. Lallubhai Fakirbhai vide registered sale deed dated 22.02.2008 and due to dispute between the legal heirs of said Mr. Lallubhai Fakirbhai regarding legality and validity of the said sale deed, suit being Special Civil Suit No. 405 of 2008 was filed against defendant No. 1. Since the dispute came to be resolved on 12.09.2014, the said suit has been disposed of on 02.10.2014. It is the specific case of the defendant No. 1 that he has not received any amount of consideration and considering payment of huge amount in cash, the same is not believable. Further, copies of the sale agreement produced before the learned trial Court and the learned Mamlatdar are different inasmuch as, signatures of the witnesses are missing in one of the documents whereas, in the same document, it bears signatures of the witnesses.

6. Similarly, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. respondent No. 3 and the appellant herein have contested the suit and have submitted before the learned trial Court that they have purchased the subject land from defendant No. 1 through registered sale deed on 03.09.2014 and paid full consideration by cheque to defendant No. 1. Thus, respondent No. 3 and the appellant herein being bona fide purchasers and after having verified the title of the subject land and further verifying the dispute arose between defendant No. 1 and original owner of the subject land, they have purcha