IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19495 of 2011 Ravindra Kumar Srivastava Versus Sanjay Kumar &Ors ---------------------------------- 04. 07.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant petitioner Ravindra Kumar Srivastava has filed this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge-4th, Gaya in Title Suit No. 44 of 2010/ 124 of 2010 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) praying for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid title suit for specific performance of alleged contract dated 29.6.2006 and also in the said suit prayed for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant 1st set in favour of defendant 2nd set in the year 2010 is void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged baibayana said to be executed between the plaintiff and defendant 1st set is unregistered. By the amendment in the Registration Act in 2001 the deed of agreement requires compulsory registration and unless it is registered no title will pass to the plaintiff and in such circumstances the plaintiff cannot challenge the registered sale deed executed by defendant 1st set in favour of defendant 2nd set. Therefore, the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the defendant 2nd 2 set. Admittedly, the plaintiff respondent filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale dated 29.6.2006. According to the plaintiff the defendant petitioner purchased the suit property knowing the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that would be evident from paragraph 12 of the plaint. In the case of Ram Sagar Devi vs. Mostt. Ghutru Devi @ Mahabati Devi and others 2008 (4) PLJR 400 this Court has held that agreement to sell does not create an interest on the proposed vendee in the property valued at more than Rs.100/- and title can be conveyed only by executing a registered sale deed as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. An agreement for sale of immovable property is a contract evidencing the fact that the sale of property shall take place on the terms settled between the parties but does not itself create any interest or charge on such property. Right and title of the land would not get divested unless there is a sale deed. Therefore, the agreement to sale is not required to be registered. So far the objection that the agreement to sell is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act is concerned it appears that the registration required under Section 17 is for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act is a sealed of protection to the proposed transferee to remain in possession against the original owner as agreed to sell these lands to the transferees if the proposed transferees satisfy other conditions of Section 3 53-A that protection is available as a sealed only against the transferor, the proposed vendor and would disentitle him from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferees who are put in possession pursuant to such an agreement. Therefore, if the proposed transferee is in possession of the property on the basis of unregistered agreement then his possession will not be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, according to the plaintiff the defendant 2nd set purchased the suit property with knowledge of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 1st set and therefore, whether the defendant 1st set will be entitled for decree of specific performance of contract against the defendant No.1 or not is another matter but if it is found that in fact the defendant 2nd set has purchased the property with knowledge of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 1st set then the transfer made by the defendant 1st set in favour of defendant 2nd set will not be bona fide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit is barred under any provision of law. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)