Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S. 17 (2)

Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17 (2), Explanation [as introduced by Registration (Amendment) Act (11 of 1927)]-Instru ment merely an agreement to sell immovable property-Contract though containing recital of payment of purchase money does not require registration.   Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh A I R 1926 P C 94 ; James R. R. Skinner v. Robert Hercules Skinner and others A I R 1929 P C 269 and Diwan Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and others A I R 1932 Lah. 276 ref.   Bansi Dhar and others v. Sampat Kumar Singh and others A 1 R 1927 All. 287 rel. JUDGEMENT   FAIZULLAH KHAN, J.---This Letters Patent Appeal by Malik Banaras is directed against the order, dated the 24th of June 1960, of Abdul Aziz Khan, J., whereby the appeal of Sayed Farman Shah respondent from the remand order of the Senior Sub-Judge, Peshawar, dated the 6th of March 1957, was accepted, and the judgment and decree of Sub-Judge 4th Class, Peshawar, dated the 29th of October 1956, dismissing the appellant's suit, was restored.   2. The facts giving rise to the suit, out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises, may be shortly narrated :-   Malik Banaras Khan sued Sayed Farman Shah for specific performance of an agreement, dated the 27th of April 1955, copy Exh. P. W. 3/1. The gravamen of the plaintiff's claim was that on the 27th of April 1955, Sayed Farman Shah executed an agreement in which he had agreed to sell to him 161 marlas of land towards the west, out of khasra No. 178/1, that in the said agreement the sale price of the land had been fixed at Rs. 500 which had been paid to the defendant, and the possession of the land was also given to him (plaintiff), and that the defendant had further agreed to execute a sale-deed and get it registered by the 10th of May 1955, but he had not done so. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit on various grounds, but we are concerned in this appeal with the plea raised by the defendant, to the effect that the agreement (the actual word used in the written statement was Iqrarnama) was in fact exchange and inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. On the, pleadings of the parties, the following issues…