BINAY KRISHNA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EARLIER , the petitioner was appearing in the matter in person but after understanding the complexity involved in the interpretation of the amendments brought in the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, he has again appeared through counsel.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The revision application is directed against the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge -I, Biharsharif in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 by which the petition of the defendant petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(3.) THE aforesaid title suit had been filed by the Plaintiffs -Opposite Parties for specific performance of contract seeking a direction upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties described in Schedule -1 of the plaint and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs based their case on an unregistered deed of Baybeyana (contract for sale) dated 19.11.2003. After appearing in the case, the defendant -petitioners filed an application on 27.2.2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint on the ground, inter alia, that the contract for sale being unregistered is inadmissible and cannot be enforced for the purpose of specific performance of contract. The plaintiffs -opposite parties filed the rejoinder and after hearing the parties, the court below by the impugned order has rejected the petition, since in the opinion of the court Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable and the contract for sale was not required to be registered even as per the Registration and Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001.