YADAV, J. - (1.) AFTER filing of stay vacate application on behalf of non petitioner Kewal Ram, this misc. appeal is posted today for disposal of stay application.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned passed by the learned trial court refusing temporary injunction to the plaintiff-appellant. Indisputably Surata Ram, the plaintiff-appellant, alleged to have obtained an agreement to sale from Chuna Ram on 10. 5. 1996 with a further allegation that Chuna Ram had obtained agreement to sale on 7. 7. 1994 from Kewal Ram, to whom the disputed property actually belongs. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the agreement dated 7. 7. 1994 where there is recital about delivery of possession by Kewal Ram to Chuna Ram is an unregistered agreement. It is further conceded that as a matter of fact the aforesaid agreement dated 7. 7. 1994 requires compulsory registration. Since the so called agreement dated 7. 7. 94 alleged to have been executed by Kewal Ram in favour of Chuna Ram requires compulsory registration whereas it is not registered, it is not admissible in evidence. I have no hesitation to hold that on the basis of aforesaid unregistered agreement the present appellant Surata Ram has no authority to obtain another agreement to sale from Chuna Ram. Admittedly, the subsequent agreement dated 10. 5. 96 executed by Chuna Ram in favour of appellant Surata Ram is also not registered where there is recital about delivery of possession. Thus, the agreement dated 10. 5. 96 is also not admissible in evidence. There is yet another strong reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. In the present case there is no bonafide dispute between the parties in view of the provisions envisaged under Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which clearly provides that a contract for sale of immovable property does not of itself create any interest or charge on such property. I am of the view that if the agreement dated 7. 7. 1994 does not create any interest in favour of Chuna Ram then he had no legal justification to enter into the subsequent agreement dated 10. 5. 1996 with the present appellant. Looking into the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the ad interim stay order dated 4. 3. 1998 deserves to be vacated. However, it is made clear that the observations made above will not come in the way of the appellant either at the time of final hearing of the present appeal or at any subsequent judicial proceedings of the present suit. With the aforesaid observation the ad interim stay order dated 4. 3. 1998 is vacated.
(3.) IT is reported by the process server that respondent No. 2 Chuna Ram has expired 7 months before. As within 90 days limitation prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the appellant fails to move an application for bringing on record his legal representatives the appeal against respondent No. 2 stands abated automatically. .;