IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21290 of 2011 Md.Kaish Versus Ajay Kumar & Anr ---------------------------------- 03. 13.12.2011. Heard the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The defendant-petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by Sub Judge IVth Bettiah, West Champaran in title suit No.275 of 2009 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint. The learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff- respondent filed the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of unregistered Mahadanama and, therefore, the petitioner filed the application for rejection of the plaint because after amendment in the Registration Act in the year 2001, the Mahadanama must be registered otherwise the same cannot be enforced specifically. The learned senior counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2010 (1) P.L.J.R. 317.. It is well settled principle of law that Mahadanama is agreement between the parties and does not create title at presenti. It only gives a right to the proposed purchaser to get it specifically enforced. So far Section 17 of the Registration Act is concerned, it provides that if that agreement is not registered then the proposed transferee will not be able to protect his possession as provided under Section 53 A of the transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the registration is necessary under Section 17 after - 2 - amendment of the Registration Act is only for the purpose of Section 53A of the T.P. Act. In the decision relied upon by the petitioner itself, it has been held that “it is evident from the said provision that any documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property for deriving the benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act must be registered if it has been executed after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2001 and in fact such document is not registered, it will have no effect for the purpose of invoking the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the T.P. Act. It appears that in that case, the proposed transferee on the basis of unregistered Mahadanama filed a suit and in the suit, injunction was prayed for against the transferor which was allowed by the trial Court. This Court considering that the Mahadanama is unregistered held that proposed transferee cannot protect his possession and set aside the order of injunction passed by the Court below. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that none of the provision either Section 17 of the Registration Act or Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is bar to the suit for specific performance of contract. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. and the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. As such the same cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)