MADHO RAO Vs. BHAO DECEASED L.R.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is on behalf of the Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and it is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated the 10th Dai 1353 -F. by which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Aurangabad dated 24th Amardad, 1352 -F. dismissing the suit on the preliminary ground that the suit document being unregistered could not be received in evidence.

(2.) THE material facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows: Plaintiff's case was that a sum of Rs. 720415 -3 I. G. equivalent to H. Section Rs. 8357 -10 -3 was due to him from Defendants 1 and 2 the father of Defendants 3 to 6 who sold Survey No. 7 excluding 2 to 3 bighas and Survey Nos. 72, 73, 79 and 80 situate in Chencholi Limbaji, Kannad Taluq in extinguishment of the debt by a document dated 16th Ardibehest 1347 -F. and put the Plaintiff in possession of the lands sold and promised to execute a regular sale -deed and get it registered when demanded by the Plaintiff. The demand it was alleged was made in the month of Khurdad 1347 - F. but instead of complying with it, the Defendants wrongfully dispossessed the vendee from the lands.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have given effect to the former plea on the authority of - Shivappa v. Anna, 29 DLR 819 (A) in which a Bench of this Court following - Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh : AIR 1926 PC 94 (B) held that an agreement for sale acknowledging the receipt of earnest money created a charge on the Immovable property under Section 55 CI. (6) (b), T. P. Act, and therefore did of itself create an interest in property and requires registration and if such an agreement happens to be unregistered, it is inadmissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance relating to the property agreed to be sold.