# Irfan Quraishi v. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1228
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-06
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 934 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/irfan-quraishi-v-u-p-state-industrial-development-authority-ltd-anr-54151
- **Pages:** 18

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 53,966. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. Court also takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
Rabindranath Panigrahi Vs. Surendra Sahu, 2025 INSC 333, and is of view that in the facts
and circumstances of present case, no circumstances exist to overturn concurrent findings returned
by learned Trial Court as well as by First Appellate Court (also see Murthy & Ors. Vs. C.
Saradambal & Ors, (2022) 3 SCC 209 and Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Sheshammal, 2006 (5)
SCC 545 ).

30. Present Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1228
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 934 of 2025

Irfan Quraishi ...Appellant
Versus
U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint at the threshold under O. VII R.
11 CPC on the grounds of absence of cause of action, bar of law, and insufficiency of court fees, based solely
on the averments contained in the plaint.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 80, 96, O. 7 R. 11, O. 39 R. 1, 2, O. 41 R. 11 - Specific Relief
Act, 1963 - ss. 38, 41 - Registration Act, 1908 - ss. 17, 49 - Rejection of plaint - Oral Agreement -
Immovable property - Insufficient court fees - Barred under Law - Maintainability - The plaintiff -
appellant instituted a civil suit seeking reliefs of permanent injunction to protect his alleged
possession over the disputed industrial plot and mandatory injunction directing defendant No.2
to complete formalities for execution of sale deed in his favour, asserting that he had entered
into an oral agreement with the predecessor-in-interest (father of defendant No.2) for purchase
of the property for a consideration of ₹70 lakhs, out of which substantial amounts were allegedly
paid partly through demand drafts and partly in cash, and that possession was delivered to him
in part performance, however, after the death of the original owner, the defendant, despite
assurances, refused to execute the sale deed, leading to institution of the suit, which was
opposed by the defendants through an application under O. VII R. 11 CPC contending inter alia
absence of any written agreement, lack of cause of action, bar of law, non-joinder of necessary
parties, and insufficiency of court fees, whereupon the trial court allowed the said application
and rejected the plaint at the threshold, giving rise to the instant first appeal.

Held:. It is apparent that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were legally unenforceable and plaintiff's suit was
clearly barred by law - Even assuming that the defect relating to payment of court fees was curable, since the
suit itself was barred by law, the trial court committed no error in allowing the defendant's application under
O. 7 R. 11(d) CPC and rejecting the plaint at the threshold - The impugned order does not warrant any
interference by High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction - Accordingly, appeal dismissed at the
2 All. Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr.
1229
admission stage, thus, impugned judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 affirmed. [Paras 36, 37]
(E-13)

Case Law Cited
Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi (2024) 12 SCC 723; Prem Kumar and Others v. Gurudev Singh and others 2024
SCC OnLine All 7420; Irfan Qureshi v. UP State Industrial Development Authority and Another 2024 SCC
OnLine All 6776; Yellapu Uma Maheshwari and another v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others (2015)
16 SCC 787; Vinod Kumar and others v. Sudha Land Ventures and Homes Pvt.Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine All
8778; Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Thr. LRS. v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Thr. LRS. And
others (2022) 12 SCC 128; Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia and others 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1208; Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459 - - referred to

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure,1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Registration Act, 1908

List of Keywords
First appeal u/s 96 CPC; Rejection of plaint; O. VII R. 11 CPC; Barred by Limitation; Want of cause of action;
Insufficiency of court fees; Oral agreement to sell; Absence of written agreement; Payment of part
consideration; Demand drafts and Cash payment; Alleged possession; Execution of sale deed; Permanent
injunction; Mandatory injunction; Enforcement of agreement; Non-joinder of necessary parties/legal heirs; ss
17 and 49 of Registration Act, 1908 (as amended in U.P.); Unregistered document; No enforceable
right/title/interest; Bar u/ss. 38 and 41(h) of Specific Relief Act; Equally efficacious relief; Specific
performance; Notice u/s 80 CPC; Res-judicata; Appellate jurisdiction; Appeal dismissed

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. - 934 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Judge Small Causes, Bulandshahr in O.S.
No.1054 of 2022 (Old No.790 of 2022)

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ashish Kumar Singh, Rahul Pandey

Advs. for the Respondent:
Rahul Kumar Jadaun, Vibhu Rai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 C.P.C. against the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Judge Small Causes, Bulandshahr in O.S. No.1054
of 2022 (Old No.790 of 2022) Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority
Limited & others, whereby the application of the defendant No.2 Smt. Aparna Bajpai under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the
ground of being barred by law, want of cause of action as well as, due to the insufficient court fees
paid.

2. The factual matrix is that the plaintiff'appellant filed a suit, being O.S. No. 1054 of 2022,
with the averments that father of defendant no.2, Late Chandradutt Bajpai, was the owner in
possession, and proprietor of M/S CDS Chemicals, situated at C-4, Industrial Area (Jokhabad),
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. It was further averred that an oral agreement was entered into
between the plaintiff and the father of defendant no.2 for the sale of the aforesaid plot for a
consideration of Rs.70 lacs. Out of the said consideration, a sum of Rs.29 lacs was paid through
three demand drafts and a further sum of Rs.6 lacs was paid in cash on 10.07.2008. It was also
averred that since then, the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed plot.

3. It was further averred that the plaintiff repeatedly requested the father of defendant no.2 to
execute the sale deed in respect of the disputed plot; however, he continued to defer the same on
one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the father of defendant no.2 died due to Covid-19 in the
year 2021, leaving behind defendant no.2 as his legal heir.

4. It was further averred that thereafter, the plaintiff remained in contact with defendant no.2
and requested her to execute the sale deed in respect of the disputed plot, however, defendant no.2
continued to assure the plaintiff that she would execute the sale deed in his favour after completing
due formalities; however, when she ultimately refused to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was
compelled to file the present suit seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) that by decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendant no.2, the defendant No.2 be restrained from dispossessing him, interfering in the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff or in any other manner whatsoever.

(b) that by decree of mandatory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendant no.2, the defendant No.2 be directed to complete the necessary formalities in the office of
defendant no.1, for transferring the disputed plot No. C-4, Industrial Area (Jokhabad),
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr by receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff.

(c) any other relief which in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may deem
appropriate to grant in favour of the plaintiff.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.2 Smt. Aparna Bajpai moved an application
72-C2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no oral or written agreement in respect of
the disputed property was ever entered into between her father and the plaintiff. It was further
averred that the plaintiff has instituted the suit on the basis of photocopies of the alleged demand
drafts, which was not legally maintainable. It was also averred that the date of alleged agreement
and duration during which it was to be performed, was not disclosed by the plaintiff.

6. It was further averred that the suit should have been filed for the relief of specific
performance of a contract, for which ad valorem court fees was required to be paid; however, the
plaintiff has deliberately claimed the relief of mandatory injunction. It was also averred that the
plaintiff was neither the owner of the disputed property nor any cause of action arose in his favour,
and the suit was barred by limitation. The suit was undervalued and the court fees paid was
insufficient.

7. It was further contended that there was neither any oral nor written agreement between the
plaintiff and the defendant no.2, and that the suit, having been filed solely on the basis of an alleged
2 All. Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr.
1231
oral agreement, was not legally maintainable. It was further averred that the suit was barred by the
provisions of Section 80 CPC, since no prior notice was given to the U.P. State Industrial
Development Authority Limited defendant no.1, who was a functionary of the State.

8. It was further averred that the father of defendant no.2 died leaving behind defendant no.2,
her sister, and her mother as his legal heirs; however, the other legal heirs had not been impleaded
as parties to the suit. It was also averred that the plaintiff had earlier moved an application for
temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was rejected by the trial court vide
order dated 31.05.2024, wherein it was concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief on
the basis of the alleged oral agreement.

9. With these averments, it was prayed that since the plaintiff has concealed material facts and
has not approached the Court with clean hands, as such, the plaint was liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 clauses (a), (c), and (d) CPC. It was further averred that the suit was barred
under Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

10. The aforesaid application filed by defendant no.2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was
opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC were not applicable. It was further averred that the issue of
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be decided at the threshold stage.

11. It was further submitted that the findings recorded by the trial court while deciding the
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC could not influence the final adjudication of the suit,
which is required to be decided on its own merits. It was also averred that no legal notice under
Section 80 CPC was required to be served on defendant no.1 in the present case.

12. The trial court, by the impugned order dated 23.07.2025, has allowed the defendants'
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the plaintiff was asserting his rights in
respect of the disputed property solely on the basis of an oral agreement, which is unenforceable in
law in view of the specific provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, as
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The trial court further concluded that, on the basis of such
an oral agreement, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff to institute the present
suit.

13. The trial court also held that the suit, having been filed for specific performance of an
agreement, required payment of ad valorem court fees, which was not paid by the plaintiff, and on
this ground as well, the trial court decided the issue against the plaintiff.

14. The above order of the trial court has been challenged by the plaintiff by filing the instant
appeal under Section 96 CPC.

15. Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the
suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable, as there was an admission on the part of defendant no.2
that her late father had accepted the consideration in respect of the disputed property. On the basis
1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of such admission, it was contended that the plaintiff was at least entitled to refund of the
consideration paid, which was not considered by the trial court.

16. It was further submitted that the issues raised by the defendant no.2 could not have been
decided at the threshold stage, as they required evidence to be adduced, and therefore the plaintiff's
suit was legally maintainable. It was also submitted that even if the court fees paid was insufficient,
the plaintiff ought to have been afforded an opportunity to make good the deficiency; however, no
such opportunity was granted and the plaint was straightaway rejected, which is illegal. With these
submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

17. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 UPSIDA submitted that, in respect of the
disputed property, a lease was executed by the authority in favour of the father of defendant no.2.
He further submitted that, upon obtaining no-objection certificates from the other legal heirs of the
deceased Chandradutt Bajpai, the leasehold rights in the disputed plot were transferred in favour of
the wife of the deceased, Smt. Sunita Bajpai, on 18.09.2024, and now she is in possession of the
disputed plot. He further submitted that the plaintiff never remained in possession of the disputed
plot.

18. Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.2, submitted that the defendants have
never admitted that any part consideration was paid by the plaintiff either to the father of the
deceased defendant or to defendant no.2. It was further submitted that there was no written
agreement between the parties and, as such, no right could be inferred in favour of the plaintiff.

19. It was further submitted that in the absence of any written agreement, the plaintiff was not
entitled to any relief of permanent or mandatory injunction in respect of the disputed property. It
was also submitted that the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 CPC had earlier been rejected by the trial court by order dated 31.05.2024, which was
challenged by the plaintiff by filing FAFO No. 1648 of 2024, which was dismissed on merits by
this Court vide order dated 18.10.2024, wherein it was held that on the basis of the alleged oral
agreement the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

20. It was further submitted that the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2024 was assailed by the
plaintiff before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Diary) No. 6912 of 2025 (Irfan Qureshi
v. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority), which was subsequently dismissed for noncompliance with the conditional order. It was further submitted that the plaintiff's suit was not
legally maintainable, being in the nature of enforcement of an alleged oral agreement, which was
impermissible in view of the bar contained under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908,
as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, as well as Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act.
It was thus contended that the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the plaint and,
therefore, no interference was warranted by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the trial court and the
documents submitted with the appeal.
2 All. Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr.
1233

22. The Apex Court in the case of Balram Singh vs Kelo Devi (2024) 12 SCC 723, wherin the
plaintiffs sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her
possession in the suit property in Uttar Pradesh on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell, held
as under:-

"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff instituted a suit
praying for a decree of permanent injunction only, which was claimed on the basis of the
agreement to sell dated 23-3-1996. However, it is required to be noted that the agreement to sell
dated 23-3-1996 was an unregistered document/agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper.
Therefore, as such, such an unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in
evidence.

7. Having been conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the
relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the
plaintiff filed a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case,
an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the
same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a
suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance.

8. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis
of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant
specifically filed the counterclaim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the
learned trial court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did
not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement
to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to
sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief
by clever drafting.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both, the learned first appellate
court and the High Court have committed a grave error in passing a decree for permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counterclaim filed
by the original defendant."

(emphasis supplied)

23. This Court in the case of Prem Kumar and Others vs Gurudev Singh and others 2024
SCC OnLine All 7420, considering whether unregistered agreement to sell could be legally
enforced in a suit for specific performance, held as under:-

"Re :- First Question : - Whether a decree for specific performance based upon an
unregistered for sale dated 31.05.1977 is at all sustainable'

18. In view of the questions framed by this Court, it is not necessary to comment upon
requirement or no requirement of getting the AFS re-registered in the State of U.P. and whether the
plaintiff was obliged or not obliged to do that, is irrelevant as the Court has to examine validity of
1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the decree based upon unregistered agreement, whatever might have been the reason behind its
non-registration.

19. As regards requirement of registration of an AFS, it is to note that the U.P. Civil
Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976) came into force w.e.f. 1-11977. This Act amended the Registration Act, 1908 as well as the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
besides several other enactments. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as applicable to
the State of U.P., w.e.f. 1-1-1977, reads as under:

'Section 54. 'Sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or
part-paid and part-promised.

Sale how made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property [***], or in
the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.

Contract of Sale- A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale
of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.

It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

Such contract can be made only by a registered instrument.'

20. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines-

'Instrument- as a non testamentary instrument

'Registered- means registered in any part of the territories to which this Act extends
under the law for the time being in force regulating the registration of documents.'

21. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 Act provides that certain documents are
required to be compulsorily registered and, other documents are exempted from being registered.
Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in the State of U.P., reads as under:

"Section 17(1)- The following documents shall be registered- (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, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:'

'''''''''''''..

(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether
vested or contingent to in immovable property.'

22. Section 17(2)(v) of the Act of 1908 reads as under:
2 All. Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr.
1235

"Section 17(2)- Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to-

(v) any documents other than documents specified in sub-section (1-A)] [other than
contract for sale] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title
or interest to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document
which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or
interest or;

The words 'other than contract for sale' occurring in Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration
Act have been inserted by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 w.e.f. 1-1-77.

23. Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under:

"4. Enactments relating to contracts to be taken as part of Contract Act and
supplemental to the Registration Act. - The chapters and sections of this Act which relate to
contracts shall be taken as part of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872).

[And Section 54, Paragraphs 2 and 3, 59, 107 and 123 shall be read as supplemental to
the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908).]'

24. Thus, from a combined reading of Sections 3, 4 and 54 of the Act of 1882 and, Section
17 of the Act of 1908, as applicable to the State of U.P., as amended by U.P. Act 57 of 1976, it is
clear that every contract of sale of an immovable property situated in any district of U.P. shall be
made only by a registered instrument. Even though a contract for sale of immovable property does
not by itself create any interest in or charge on such property and only creates a right to obtain
another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such
right, title or interest, nonetheless, the said contract for sale of an immovable property is required
to be registered in the State of U.P. w.e.f. 1-1-1977.

25. The next question which arises for consideration is whether an unregistered
document for sale of an immovable property, could still be enforced in a suit for specific
performance. At this stage, the Court may refer to Section 49 contained in the Registration Act,
1908 alongwith U.P. Amendments made therein by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976, w.e.f. 01.01.1977. A
careful perusal of the amendments made would reflect that certain provisions relating to
admissibility of an unregistered agreement in a suit for specific performance have been 'omitted'
and requirement of registration has been 'inserted.' The provision reads as under:'

Central Act

'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 (4 of 1882) to be
registered shall-

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) confer any power to adopt, or

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such
power,

unless it has been registered:

[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by
this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as
evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief
Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) [***] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected
by registered instrument.]

In Uttar Pradesh:

In Section 49,-

(i) in the first paragraph, after the words 'or by any provision of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882', insert the words 'or of any other law for the time being in force';

(ii) for clause (b), substitute the following clause, namely : -

(b) confer any power or create any right or relationship, or';

(iii) in clause (c), after the words 'such power', insert the words 'or creating such right or
relationship';

(iv) in the proviso, omit the words 'as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific
performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or.'

[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, sec. 34 (w.e.f. 1--1-1977).]'

26. The result of these amendments is, that, prior to 01.01.1977, an unregistered contract
for sale qua immovable property situated in U.P. could be enforced in a suit for specific
performance of a contract, but after the amendment in Section 49 of the Registration Act w.e.f.
01.01.1977, an unregistered agreement cannot be enforced in a suit for specific performance of a
contract nor can it be read in evidence."

24. In similar facts and circumstances this Court in the case of Irfan Qureshi vs UP State
Industrial Development Authority and Another 2024 SCC OnLine All 6776, the parties of the
instant appeal, while considering the legality of the order dismissing the plaintiff's interim
injunction application, held as under:-

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that mandatory injunctions can
be granted under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The said provision finds place in
2 All. Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr.
1237
Chapter VIII and it applies when, in order to prevent breach of an obligation, it is necessary to
compel performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing and grant of injunction
to prevent such breach is always in the discretion of the court. In the instant case, admittedly, the
suit in question has not been filed claiming a decree for specific performance of an agreement,
probably for the reason that there is no written agreement between the parties. Appellant's claim
for relief of mandatory injunction based upon oral understanding requires to be dealt with in the
light of law of the land.

8. Considering the arguments of Sri. Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, in relation
to Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, this Court thinks it appropriate to deal with the legal
proposition in that regard.

9. Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 provides for documents, registration whereof is
compulsory. There is an amendment made by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1979 by inserting clause (f) in
Section 17(1). The relevant provision i.e. Section 17(1), (as amended in U.P.), 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(XX of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (VII of 1871, or the Indian Registration
Act, 1877(III of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely:'

......

(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether
vested or contingent, to or in immovable property;

(c) non-testamentary instruments, which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any
consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any
such right, title or interest;

.........

(f) any other instrument required by any law for the time being in force, to be registered.'

10. There is also a corresponding amendment in sub-section (2) of Section 17, inasmuch
as, Clause (v), as it stood before Central Act 48 of 2001 was substituted partially vide Section 3 of
Central Act 48 of 2001, w.e.f. 24th September, 2001. Sub-section (2)(v) of Section 17 reads as
under:'

'(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to -

.......
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) any document other than contract for sale not itself creating, declaring, assigning,
limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest to or in immovable property, but merely
creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or'

11. An amendment was also made in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by Section 30 of U.P.
Act No. 57 of 1976, w.e.f. 1.1.1977. Section 54, as amended in U.P., reads as under:

"54. 'Sale' defined.- 'Sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or
promised or part-paid and part-promised.

Sale how made.- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of
one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be
made only by a registered instrument.

Contract of sale.- A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale
of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.

It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

Such contract can be made only by a registered instrument.'

12. Consistent with the amendments referred to above, Section 49 of Act, 1908 was also
simultaneously amended by Section 34 of U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 w.e.f. 1.1.1977 and the amended
Section 49, as applicable in U.P. reads as under:

"Section 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 (4 of
1882) or of any other law for the time being in force, to be registered shall-

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

(b) confer any power or create any right or relationship, or

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such
power or creating such right or relationship, unless it has been registered:

Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by
this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as
evidence of part-performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be
effected by registered instrument.'"

13. The aforesaid provisions make it clear that an agreement to sell in respect of
immovable property lying in State of U.P. required registration necessarily i.e. compulsorily.
2 All. Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr.
1239
Section 17 of Act, 1908 read with Section 54 of Act, 1882, as applicable in U.P., makes it very
clear that a contract of sale, as defined in Section 54, can be made only by a registered
instrument. By omission of explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 17 of Act, 1908, the
legislature has made it very clear that in State of U.P., an agreement to sell immovable property
would also require compulsory registration so as to create any right, title or interest in
immovable property. This view finds support from a decision of this Court in Smt. Prabha Awasthi
v. Nisha Richharia, 2012 (8) ADJ 557, wherein a Division Bench referring to Section 17 of Act,
1908, as amended in U.P. w.e.f. 1.4.1977, read with Section 49, has observed as under:

"Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 has been amended in the State of U.P. vide U.P.
Act No. 57 of 1976 w.e.f. 1st of April, 1977 by amending clause (b) of sub section (2) and by
omitting the Explanation thereto of section 17 of the Registration Act. It follows that after the
commencement of the aforesaid Amending Act, an agreement to sell in respect of immovable
property lying in the State of U.P. necessarily requires registration. A document which necessarily
requires registration being unregistered one cannot be read in evidence in view of section 49 of the
aforesaid Act. It deals with the effect of non registered document required to be registered.
Noticeably, section 49 of the Registration Act was also amended by the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976
vide section 34 simultaneously.'

14. Though dispute before Division Bench in Prabha Awasthi (supra) related to an
agreement executed in 2005 but while having a retrospect of the provisions of Act, 1908, as
amended in U.P. in 1977, and the situation as had arisen, the Court has made above observations.
However, since proviso to Section 49 of Act, 1908 permits an unregistered document to be received
as evidence of part-performance of a contract for the purpose of Section 53-A of Act, 1882, this
Court finds that permitting a document to be received in evidence for limited purpose as such
would not have the effect of influencing the rights of the parties vis a vis the immovable property
concerned. The general legislative policy under Section 49 of Act, 1908 is contained in three
clauses i.e. (a), (b) and (c) and proviso carves out an exception in respect to clause (c) only and not
(a) and (b) thereof. The inevitable conclusion qua the immovable property is that, an unregistered
document shall not result in affecting the right etc. over the immovable property in any manner and
also shall not confer any power to adopt it. To the extent the proviso operates, it permits that an
unregistered document affecting immovable property may be given in evidence i.e. where a
document remains unregistered and title does not pass, the agreement between the parties which
preceded the ineffective document shall remain and may be received in evidence to look into the
terms thereof. This by itself, would not confer any right since no such right has been conferred
under the substantive law. Receiving in evidence does not mean conferment of substantive right.
The rule of evidence cannot enlarge or alter the provisions of substantive law. It cannot confer
rights, if there are none under the substantive law.

15. The Court finds that even Section 53-A would have no application in the present case.
Section 53-A of Act, 1882 reads as under:

'Part performance.- Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any
immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to
constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty:
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the
property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession continues in possession
in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract,

and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then,
notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or,
where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner
prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming
under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him
any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession,
other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for
consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.

16. In order to take shelter behind the above provision, one has to satisfy the following
conditions, as are evident from bare reading of Section 53-A:

(i) The contract should have been in writing, signed by or on behalf of transferor.

(ii) The transferee should have got possession of immovable property covered by contract
as a part-performance of the contract.

(iii) If the transferee is already in possession and he continues in possession in partperformance of the contract, he further should have done some act in furtherance of the contract.

(iv) The transferee has either performed his part of contract or is willing to perform his
part of the contract.

(emphasis supplied)

25. The Apex Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheshwari and another vs. Buddha
Jagadheeswararao and others (2015) 16 SCC 787, while analysing Section 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act,1908, has held that a document which has the effect of creating and taking away
the rights in respect of an immovable property, is compulsorily registrable and if not registered, is
not admissible in evidence, however, it can be relied upon for collateral purpose, subject to
payment of stamp duty, penalty, proof and relevancy.

26. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and others vs. Sudha Land
Ventures and Homes Pvt.Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine All 8778 has also considered the issue whether
on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell, temporary interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1
CPC and perpetual injunction under the Specific Relief Act can be granted to the plaintiff. The
relevant paragraphs of the above judgment read as under:-
2 All. Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Ltd. & Anr.
1241

14. In the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd., [2008
(72) ALR 638 (SC).] the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed following facts as stated by Mulla in his
Indian Registration Act, 7th Edition, at page 189.

"The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad, Madras, Patna, Lahore, Assam,
Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa, Rangoon and Jammu and Kashmir; the former Chief Court of
Oudh; the Judicial Commissioner's Court of Peshawar, Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the
Supreme Court have held that a document which requires registration under section 17 and which
is not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is
nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it.'"

15. The Apex Court culled out the following principles:

1. 'A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under section 49
of the Registration Act.

2.