Registration of agreement to sell does not itself prove notice; plaintiff must establish prior possession and superior title.

Registration of an agreement to sell does not, by itself, constitute notice to a subsequent purchaser. A plaintiff seeking to recover possession on the basis of an earlier agreement must prove prior possession, dispossession, and the facts that entitle him to displace the defendant's title and possession. Where the defendant relies on a registered sale deed, the plaintiff cannot shift the burden by mere assertion of a prior agreement; absence of notice is not required to be proved by the defendant unless the plaintiff first establishes the factual foundation for that claim. The earlier authority relied on was treated as confined to its own facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff established prior possession and dispossession so as to recover the suit property; (ii) whether the purchaser from the prior transferee was fixed with notice of the plaintiff's earlier agreement to sell, and upon whom the burden of proving absence of notice lay.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff established prior possession and dispossession so as to recover the suit property.

Analysis: The plaintiff relied on an earlier agreement and subsequent sale-deed, but failed to prove that he had been in possession in the relevant year or that he had been dispossessed by the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, held title through a registered sale-deed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the purchaser from the prior transferee was fixed with notice of the plaintiff's earlier agreement to sell, and upon whom the burden of proving absence of notice lay.

Analysis: Registration of the earlier agreement, by itself, was held not to amount to notice. The Court further held that a defendant with title is not required to prove absence of notice merely because the plaintiff asserts a prior agreement; the plaintiff must establish the facts entitling him to displace the defendant's title and possession. The earlier relied-upon authority was confined to its own facts and did not support a general rule reversing the burden of proof.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the plaintiff, and the defendants were not required to prove absence of notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the plaintiff did not establish a superior right to recover possession, and the challenge based on notice of the earlier agreement was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of an agreement to sell does not by itself constitute notice, and a plaintiff seeking to displace a defendant's title and possession must prove the facts establishing a superior right, including any alleged notice.

---