- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellants and Sri S. A. Khan learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent, at length and in detail.
(2.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, hereinafter called the Code, is directed against the decree and judgment dated 22nd May, 1979 passed by the Civil Judge, Fatehpur in Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1978 modifying the decree and judgment dated 25th September, 1978 passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Fatehpur in O. S. No. 63 of 1977 between Syed Nazirul Mohsin and Puran and others. Undisputed facts, so far as they are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy involved in the appeal, are these : By means of a registered agreement dated 21st August, 1975 followed by another unregistered 21st July, 1976 Sri Shiv Shankar Lal, defendant appellant No. 10, agreed to sell his agricultural land delineated by Chak No. 112, situated in village Sadiqabad, pargana Kotla, district Fatehpur in favour to Nazirul Mohsin, the plaintiff-respondent. Later on, by means of the registered sale-deed dated 9th November, 1976 he sold the aforesaid land in favour of defendant- appellant Nos. 1 to 9. This led the plaintiff respondent to institute the suit for specific performance of the two agreements of sale, dated 21st August, 1975 and 21st July, 1976 in his favour and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 9th November, 1976 executed in favour of the defendant-appellant Nos. 1 to 9. By means of the decree and judgment, dated 25th September, 1978 the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff respondent preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code which was allowed by means of the decree and judgment, dated 22nd May, 1979 impugned herein.
(3.) THIS court has admitted this appeal and formulated the following two substantial questions of law for hearing : " (i) Whether the agreement in question having entered before the encactment of the Civil Law Amendment was not compulsorily required to be registered and, therefore, there should be no presumption that. the respondent knew about it. " (ii) Whether the lower appellate court was right in decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agricultural plot of land, which came to the appellant under consolidation proceedings, whereas the agreement was related to the different plots. " Sri S. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent very fairly concedes that the factum of registration of the agreement of sale, which is the subject-matter of the controversy and which was not required to be registered by law at the relevant time, will not raise the statutory presumption that the defendant, appellant Nos. 1 to 9 had notice of the said instrument. Thus, it is not necessary for the court to examine the first question of law formulated by it.;