Unregistered agreement to sell with possession recital remains admissible in specific performance, and rejection of plaint fails.

An agreement to sell is not compulsorily registrable merely because it records delivery of possession; the registration requirement under the amended section 53-A framework applies where the document is intended to confer part-performance protection. The proviso to section 49 also allows an unregistered agreement to be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance. On that basis, objections based on non-registration could not justify rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, because admissibility of the document was a matter for evidence, not a threshold ground for rejection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an unregistered agreement to sell containing a recital of possession required compulsory registration and was inadmissible in a suit for specific performance; (ii) Whether the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether an unregistered agreement to sell containing a recital of possession required compulsory registration and was inadmissible in a suit for specific performance.

Analysis: Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as amended, protects possession taken in part performance only if the contract is duly registered where registration is mandated. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 applies to contracts for transfer of immovable property intended for the purpose of section 53-A, while section 17(2)(v) preserves the position that an agreement to sell does not itself create or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property. The proviso to section 49 further permits an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.

Conclusion: An agreement to sell is not compulsorily registrable merely because it contains a recital of possession, and it remains receivable in evidence in a suit for specific performance. The objection based on non-registration failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable.

Analysis: The application did not disclose any ground recognised by Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The admissibility of the agreement to sell was a matter to be considered at the stage of evidence and not at the threshold for rejection of the plaint.

Conclusion: The application for rejection of the plaint was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the impugned order dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell does not require compulsory registration merely because it records delivery of possession; unless the document is one that falls within section 53-A protection, it remains admissible in a suit for specific performance, and objections on such ground cannot sustain rejection of the plaint at the threshold.

---