Unregistered agreements to sell do not confer legal rights without compliance with registration laws.

1. The present appellants, who were the legal heirs of late Shri Nathabhai Morarbhai Rohit - original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2009, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 6th December, 2018 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.171 of 2018 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dabhoi, District Vadodara.

2. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under:
2.1 The plaintiffs - present appellants filed the Regular Civil Suit before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dabhoi, District Vadodara for permanent injunction and declaration contending that they have purchased the suit land of Block No.225/2, admeasuring 0-58-27 Hector - Are - Sq. Meters from the defendant Rameshbhai Bailalbhai Patel of Taluka Dabhoi, District Vadodara for a consideration of Rs.1,03,000/-. Then, an agreement to sell was executed by the defendant on 17th June, 2005 in favour of the plaintiffs and amount of consideration was paid in cash on the very same day to the defendant. That, no amount was remained to be paid to the defendant as per the contents made in the agreement. That, registered sale deed was to be executed by the defendant before the office of the Sub Registrar on instructions issued by the plaintiffs, however, no registered sale deed was executed by the defendant. That, father of the defendant namely Bhailalbhai Muljibhai Patel was expired. That, in the year 1999, the plaintiffs were cultivating the half portion of the suit land as well as at the time of filing of the suit they were having the possession. That, revenue taxes were also paid by the plaintiffs and by getting the crops from the land they were maintaining their families. That however, plaintiffs were having the physical possession of the suit land as it was purchased by them, the defendant tried to disturb the possession by entering in the suit land. That, when the grandson of the plaintiffs was entering in the suit land on 9th August, 2009, the defendant prevented him by assaulting with a stick, and therefore, a police complaint was lodged before the Dabhoi Police Station as well as Bhilapur outpost Police Station on 9th August, 2009. That, intention of the defendant was changed, however, the amount of consideration was paid by the plaintiffs, and therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration praying to declare that defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit land and grant permanent injunction against the defendant restraining to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs by him or through his servants, agents etc.
2.2 On receiving summons issued by the Court, the defendant filed written statement vide Exhibit 11 stating that plaintiffs have no right or cause of action to file the suit. That however, the defendant was not the owner of the suit land, a false agreement to sell was executed by the plaintiffs suppressing the material facts that the agreement was unregistered and time barred, no suit can be filed on a void document. That, false complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. That, after the death of the father of the defendant, the suit land was in the joint ownership of the family members, however false suit was filed and other members were in a joint possession of the suit land. That, plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land or getting any crops by cultivating the land as well as maintaining their families. That, the plaintiffs tried to encroach