Unregistered agreement to sell can support specific performance, while section 53A cannot be invoked for part performance.

An unregistered agreement to sell can still be relied upon as the foundation of a suit for specific performance, because Section 49 of the Registration Act permits its use for that purpose even though it cannot support a claim to part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act after amendment. The court also found no substantial question of law for second appeal under Section 100 CPC, since the challenge that the document was not a contract was neither pleaded nor decided below and the courts had recorded concurrent findings on the evidence. The decree for specific performance was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an unregistered agreement to sell could be relied upon as the basis for a suit for specific performance, and (ii) whether any substantial question of law arose warranting interference in second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether an unregistered agreement to sell could be relied upon as the basis for a suit for specific performance.

Analysis: The unregistered document could not be used for the limited purpose of claiming benefit of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 after the statutory amendment, but that restriction did not bar its use as the foundation of a suit for specific performance. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 permits such a document to be looked into for that purpose. The appellant also failed to deny signatures specifically, did not provide specimen signatures for comparison, and led no evidence supporting the alternative loan explanation for the cheque payment.

Conclusion: The unregistered agreement to sell was validly relied upon for the decree of specific performance, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether any substantial question of law arose warranting interference in second appeal.

Analysis: The challenge that the agreement was not a contract was neither pleaded nor decided below, and therefore could not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In any event, the document contained the parties, property identification, consideration, and payment terms, and the courts below had recorded concurrent findings on the evidentiary issues.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and interference in second appeal was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was left undisturbed and the second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered agreement to sell can still form the basis of a suit for specific performance under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, even though it cannot be used to claim part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

---