It is concluded that, on the basis of the above Hon`ble Courts, the unregord sale agreement was legitimized, since it could be admissible in a lawsuit for a defined benefit and be admissible in the evidence relating to Section 49 of the Registration Act. The non-registered sale agreement can form the basis of the legal action of a defined benefit and serve as evidence of the contractual agreement or partial performance of a contract. Section 53A should normally be used as a defence and not as a weapon when a defendant has the right to protect his property from the bearer or from his heir or his legal representative. Hon`ble Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and expressed a respectful rejection of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, where there is a dispute over the status of the Court of Appeal on the basis of an unregistered sales agreement with respect to Section 17 (1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act. Conflicts between two single bench judgments appeared in court. In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh,[6] the Hon`ble court ruled that the agreement reached by the delivery of the property is inadmissible for sale if it is not registered, but in the case of Birham Pal-Ors. V. Niranjan Singh – Golds. [7] the Court held that such an agreement may form the basis for an appeal for a defined benefit, on the basis of Section 49 of the Registration Act.

These two cases are contradictory and are contrary to the legal status of two sections of the Indian Registration Act. … Ram Kishan v. Bijender Mann aka Vijender Mann 2013 (1) PLR 195, Bench Division of the Court of Justice has decided that a lawsuit for a defined benefit based on… It was decreed the cancellation of the special execution of the sale agreement of 08.08.2005, and the defendant of the complainant was ordered to sell land of a size of 6 channels 0 marlas s… Agreement of 08.08.2005, defendant Haroon agreed to sell 6 channels of land, as described in the lead note of the application for a sales review of the Rs. 94,500/- and received the price 40,000/- that… Hon`ble Court held that Section 17 (1A) simply stated that such an unregauble contract could not be put into service within the meaning of Section 53 (A) of the Property Transfer Act of 1882. Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, does not prohibit, in a few words or with the necessary intent, the filing of an action for a defined benefit based on a non-registered sale agreement, that the surrender of the property be registered or executed for the benefit of a person to whom possession is delivered, and provided that Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, responds to an argument to the contrary.

Hon`ble Court has decided that: (a) a lawsuit for a defined benefit based on an unregistered contract/sale with a partial performance clause of the contract by delivery of ownership or executed with a person already in possession is not dismissed because of the lack of registration of the contract or agreement; (b) the omission of section 49 of the Registration Act legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even if it is not registered, it may form the basis for legal action for a specified benefit and be provided as evidence of the agreement or partial performance of a contract. [8] … The applicant has other remedies to sue for certain benefits, and then the termination action would be excluded by section 41 (H) of the Specific Relief Act.4.