Non-registration and subsequent purchaser issues in specific performance suits may not defeat enforcement or interim protection.

Non-registration of an agreement to sell, under the local amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act, did not by itself bar a suit for specific performance because Section 49 had not been correspondingly amended, so the agreement could still be relied on for enforcement. A suit for specific performance was also maintainable against both the vendor and a subsequent purchaser, with the transferee liable to join in the conveyance. The trial court's refusal of temporary injunction was set aside because it rested on incorrect legal premises and inadequate evaluation of the documentary and factual material, and the injunction issue was remanded for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-registration of an agreement to sell bars a suit for specific performance or the grant of interim protection. (ii) Whether a suit for specific performance can be maintained against a vendor and a subsequent purchaser, and whether the trial court's refusal of temporary injunction was sustainable in the absence of proper consideration of the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether non-registration of an agreement to sell bars a suit for specific performance or the grant of interim protection.

Analysis: The amended requirement of registration under the local amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act did not, by itself, defeat the plaintiff's right to sue, because Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 had not been correspondingly amended. The agreement to sell could therefore still be acted upon for the purposes of a suit for specific performance.

Conclusion: Non-registration of the agreement to sell did not bar the suit for specific performance.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit for specific performance can be maintained against a vendor and a subsequent purchaser, and whether the trial court's refusal of temporary injunction was sustainable in the absence of proper consideration of the evidence.

Analysis: A suit for specific performance against the vendor and the subsequent transferee is maintainable, and the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the prior contract and require the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance. The trial court, however, decided the injunction application mainly on incorrect legal premises and did not properly evaluate the relevant documents and factual material bearing on prima facie case. The findings on interim relief were therefore not sustainable and required fresh consideration by another Civil Judge.

Conclusion: The refusal of temporary injunction was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on the injunction application.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court interfered with the trial court's order, corrected the legal approach on registration and subsequent purchaser issues, and sent the injunction matter back for reconsideration on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-registration of an agreement to sell does not, by itself, defeat a suit for specific performance where the corresponding disabling provision has not been amended, and a prior purchaser may maintain such a suit against the vendor and a subsequent transferee, who can be directed to join in the conveyance.

---