DARSHAN YADAV ALIAS SURENDRA YADAV Vs. MURAT YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit to which this appeal relates was brought by the present appellant on 2-9-1971 in the Court of Munsif, Darbhanga against Upendra Yadav for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25-2-1971 whereby the defendants had agreed to transfer 4 kathas 1/2 dhurs of land situated in village Bhagwatipur in the district of Darbhanga. The defendant had admitted in his written statement that he had executed written agreement but contested the suit on the plea that the plaintiff had paid only Rs. 200 as an advance but failed to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 300 within a month of the agreement as promised for the reason that he could not arrange for money. The plaintiff was ndver serious and never offered the balance of consideration money or ever demanded execution of sale deed. The defendant being in dire necessity of money contracted with other buyers.

(2.) On 19-4-1972 Upendra Yadav executed two sale deeds in respect of the suit lands in favour of Sogarath Yadav and Jagdish Yadav, respectively. The plaintiff by amendment of the plaint impleaded the aforesaid transferees. There was possibility of the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiff if he could establish that he was always willing to perform his part of contract. There appeared a big hurdle in the way of the plaintiff when Murat Yadav and Dukhan Yadav jumped into the arena of contestants. On their application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., they were added as defendant Nos. 4 and 5.

(3.) It would be necessary to state at this stage the status of the first defendant Upendra Yadav with regard to the suit property. Original owner of the property was one Most. Sanjha. On 8-11-1967 she executed a sale deed in favour of Upendra Yadav but she backed out when the sale deed was presented, before the Sub-Registrar for registration on 10-11-67. Most. Sanjha denied the very execution of sale deed in favour of Upendra Yadav. On an application filed by Upendra Yadav for compulsory registration under Section 73 of the Registration Act, the Registrar on 22-9-1969 ordered for registration of the sale deed under Section 75 of the Registration Act. A document comptilsorily registrable operates from the time it would have commenced to operate if no registration was required. [B.B. Zaminunissa v. S. K. Qudoos, A.I.R. 1975 Pat 67 and Azeezulla Sheriff v. Bab- hutinwl, AIR 1973 Mysore 276]. Upendra Yadav could have sued for specific performance of unregistered sale deed but he did not bring any suit. He was satisfied with the registration.