MOHAMMAD MUSLEM Vs. KHODAIZA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against a judgement and decree dated 21st March, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Barrackpore in Title Appeal No. 64 of 2011 affirming the judgement and decree dated 30th June, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 242 of 2005 at the instance of the defendant/appellant.

(2.) Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Suit for eviction of licensee was filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant contested the said suit by setting up his defence that he has acquired a non-evictable right as he was put into possession on the basis of an agreement for sale. The agreement for sale was alleged to have been executed between the parties in the year 2002. Admittedly the agreement for sale is not a registered one. Since the agreement for sale is not a registered one and such an agreement was alleged to have been executed by the parties after amendment of the Registration Act introducing therein a new provision under Section 17(1A), both the courts below held that the defendant has not acquired any right to protect his possession on the basis of such unregistered agreement for sale.