An unregistered agreement to sell, acting as a fresh contract distinct from prior registered deeds, requires mandatory registration if it involves transfer of possession. Appellate courts cannot label such agreements as extensions of previous deeds without pleadings nor set aside trial findings on document authenticity without cogent justification.

1.1. Putul Devi, Wife of late Subas Chandra Sah@ Subhash Chandra Sah, Resident of Village- Amarpur, Post Office- Amarpur, Police Station- Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur.

1.2. Neeraj Kumar Sah, Son of late Subas Chandra Sah@ Subhash Chandra Sah, Resident of Village- Amarpur, Post Office- Amarpur, Police Station- Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur.

1.3. Ravi Kumar Sah, Son of late Subas Chandra Sah@ Subhash Chandra Sah, Resident of Village- Amarpur, Post Office- Amarpur, Police Station- Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur.

1.4. Mohit Kumar Sah, Son of late Subas Chandra Sah@ Subhash Chandra Sah, Resident of Village- Amarpur, Post Office- Amarpur, Police Station- Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

Bimal Kumar Sah son of Late Dewal Sah, resident of Village- Athania, Post Office and Police Station- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 passed in Title Appeal No. 85 of 2014 by the Court of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Naugachia (Bhagalpur), whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2014 passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge 1st, Naugachia (Bhagalpur), has been reversed.

3. At the time of admission of the present appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the following substantial question(s) of law were formulated for determination:-

(I)Whether the judgment and decree of learned lower appellate court is legally sustainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff himself stated in his plaint that after unregistered agreement for sale dated 02.11.2007, also delivery the possession of suit land to him?

II. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not hit by the provisions of section 53-A of the TP Act and Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act?

III. Whether unregistered agreement for sale dated 02.11.2007 executed along with delivery of possession is mandatory to register under Section 17(1-A) of the Indian Registration Act for the purpose of Section 53-A of the T.P. Act would be enforced before the Court of law?

IV. Whether the learned lower appellate court has an authority to deviate from the case as made out by the plaintiff in his plaint where as no averment is there that the sale deed dated 21.10.2002, is not only a sale deed, but also taken to be the registered agreement for sale for remaining land of the defendant, and unregistered agreement for sale deed is only the extension of the date for Execution of sale deed in pursuant to sale deed dated 21.10.2002?”

4. The respondent herein was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, whereas, the original appellant was the defendant in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that on 28.10.2007, the defendant-appellant represented to the plaintiff as owner in possession of a piece of land measuring 1 acre 53 decimals, appertaining to Khata No. 34 (new)/ Khata No. 18 (old), Plot No. 27 (new)/ Plot No. 35 (old), situated in Mouza- Karimchak, Thana No. 112 and he has full right and title to transfer the same, as detailed in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, having definite boundaries. It was further pleaded that the total area of land und