Case Background
The dispute arose from a land transaction in Mouza Karimchak, Thana No. 112, District Bhagalpur. The defendant owned 2 acres 40 decimals of land recorded under old Khata No. 18/new Khata No. 34 and old Plot No. 35/new Plot No. 27.
On 21.10.2002, the defendant executed a registered sale deed (Exhibit 1) in favour of the plaintiff, selling 87 decimals of land. The deed recorded that the consideration of Rs. 40,000 was paid, and possession of these 87 decimals was delivered to the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff, the parties later agreed that the remaining 1 acre 53 decimals would also be sold. He claimed that on 02.11.2007, the defendant executed an unregistered agreement for sale (Exhibit 2) for this remaining portion, for a total price of Rs. 75,000. The plaintiff said he paid Rs. 65,000 in cash at that time and that possession of the suit land was also handed over to him, with Rs. 10,000 to be paid at the time of registration of the final sale deed.
Under this alleged agreement, the defendant was supposed to execute and register the sale deed by 28.02.2008. The plaintiff claimed he repeatedly requested execution of the sale deed in February 2008, but the defendant avoided him and finally refused on 28.02.2008. The plaintiff then sent a pleader’s notice on 01.03.2008, which was not answered.
On this basis, the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 39 of 2008 before the Sub Judge 1st, Naugachia. He sought a declaration that the agreement for sale dated 02.11.2007 was valid and genuine, and a direction that the defendant execute and register the sale deed for the suit land on receiving the balance Rs. 10,000, failing which the Court should get it executed.
The defendant, in his written statement, denied any such agreement dated 02.11.2007. He admitted owning 2.40 acres in the relevant khata and plot and confirmed the earlier registered sale of 87 decimals to the plaintiff on 21.10.2002. But he firmly denied having executed any agreement on 02.11.2007 for 1 acre 53 decimals or having received Rs. 65,000 or having delivered possession of that land.
The defendant also argued that, even as pleaded by the plaintiff, the claim was based on an unregistered agreement for sale followed by alleged delivery of possession. He contended that such an agreement required compulsory registration under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908 when read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the suit was barred and not maintainable.
The Trial Court framed issues and, after trial, dismissed the suit on 11.03.2014. It held that the alleged agreement dated 02.11.2007 was not a valid or genuine document and had no legal effect, and that the plaintiff had no cause of action.
Against this, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 85 of 2014 before the 1st Additional District Judge, Naugachia. The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court, held that there was no violation of Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act or Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, treated the 2002 sale deed as including a registered agreement for the remaining land, treated the 2007 document as only extending the date of registration, and decreed the suit with costs on 19.04.2017.
The defendant, by then represented through his wife and sons after his death, approached the Patna High Court in Second Appeal No. 248 of 2017. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed four substantial questions of law focusing on: whether the suit was hit by Section 53A and Section 17(1-A), whether the unregistered agreement could be enforced, and whether the First Appellate Court could deviate from the pleadings and treat the 2002 sale deed as a composite registered agreement for sale of remaining land.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Khatim Reza, closely examined both key documents: the registered sale deed dated 21.10.2002 (Exhibit 1) and the alleged agreement to sell dated 02.11.2007 (Exhibit 2).
First, the Court looked at Exhibit 1. Column 5 clearly described that only 87 decimals of land were sold. The recital recorded that the consideration amount was received and that possession of these 87 decimals was delivered to the plaintiff. It also recorded that the vendor owned 2 acres 40 decimals, of which 87 decimals on the western side were being sold.
The recital further mentioned that on the eastern side stood the vendor’s residential house, cattle-shed, manger, and a Mahaveer Mandir. Excluding these structures, the vendor agreed to sell the remaining land at the same rate and that the vendee could get the sale executed by 30.12.2003. However, the Court noted some key gaps: no advance money was paid for this remaining land; no specific area or boundaries were given for it; and possession was recorded as delivered only for 87 decimals, not for the entire 2 acres 40 decimals.
Next, the Court examined Exhibit 2, described as an agreement to sell 1 acre 53 decimals from the same khata and plot. This document gave clear boundaries for this land. Column 4 mentioned Rs. 65,000 as consideration, but the recital spoke of Rs. 75,000 as total price, out of which Rs. 65,000 was said to have been received at execution and Rs. 10,000 left to be paid at the time of execution of a registered sale deed by 28.02.2008.
Importantly, the Court observed that Exhibit 2 did not refer at all to the earlier sale deed, Exhibit 1. It did not describe itself as an extension of that earlier arrangement, nor did it mention any previous agreement regarding the suit land. Crucially, there was no recital that possession of 1 acre 53 decimals was delivered under this agreement.
On this basis, the High Court held that Exhibit 2 was a completely fresh agreement for the suit land, separate and distinct from Exhibit 1. It rejected the plaintiff’s stand that Exhibit 2 was part of Exhibit 1 or that it merely extended the date for performance under Exhibit 1.
The Court also emphasised that under law, terms and conditions of a registered document can be changed only by another registered document. This principle had been reiterated earlier by the Patna High Court in Dr. Arun Kumar Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Radha Devi, 2015 (3) PLJR 407. Since Exhibit 2 was unregistered, it could not validly alter or extend the terms of Exhibit 1.
The High Court then approved the Trial Court’s factual finding on genuineness. The Trial Court had compared the defendant’s signatures on Exhibit 2 with his admitted signatures on other documents: Exhibit B (family settlement dated 12.11.1986), Exhibits C and C-1 (progress reports), Exhibits C/4 and C/5, and Exhibit E (another sale deed). It found material differences between these signatures and the signature on Exhibit 2, and therefore held that Exhibit 2 was not valid or genuine.
The First Appellate Court had brushed aside this finding and treated Exhibit 2 as genuine, but without giving convincing reasons or addressing the signature differences in detail. The High Court held that such reversal of a clear factual finding, without cogent reasons, was legally unsustainable and contrary to Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court also examined the plaintiff’s pleading in paragraph 3 of the plaint, where he claimed that after payment of Rs. 65,000 under Exhibit 2, possession of the suit land was delivered. The Court accepted that this was only a pleading and had to be supported by a proper registered document if it related to transfer of possession under an agreement for sale that was compulsorily registrable.
Because Exhibit 2 did not record any delivery of possession, and because Exhibit 1 only recorded delivery of possession of 87 decimals, the High Court held that there was no acceptable proof that possession of 1 acre 53 decimals was ever given to the plaintiff under a legally valid document.
On the legal questions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, the High Court took a clear approach. It held that since Exhibit 2 was a fresh agreement and did not mention delivery of possession, the bar under Section 53A read with Section 17(1-A) did not directly apply to invalidate Exhibit 2 itself. Instead, Exhibit 2 simply could not be relied upon to claim possession or seek specific performance when its genuineness itself was not proved and it conflicted with the registered document.
The Court noted that the plaintiff had cited decisions, including Radha Krishna Prasad v. Ram Bilas Prasad, 2024 (4) PLJR 672, which relied on Supreme Court judgments like R. Hemlata v. Kashturi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 381) and K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Limited v. Development Consultant Limited (2008) 8 SCC 564. Those decisions say that an unregistered agreement can be used in a suit for specific performance. The High Court did not dispute this general principle, but made it clear that, in this case, the agreement itself was not proved to be genuine and did not record possession.
In addition, the Court considered the limitation argument. Exhibit 1 itself contained an understanding that the remaining land could be sold by 31.12.2003. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period for seeking specific performance based on that understanding would expire on 31.12.2006. The suit was filed on 29.04.2008. Exhibit 2, being a separate agreement dated 02.11.2007 and unregistered, could not be used to extend the limitation linked to Exhibit 1.
Finally, the High Court concluded that the First Appellate Court had exercised its discretion perversely and contrary to judicial principles. It had gone beyond the plaintiff’s own pleadings by treating Exhibit 2 as an extension of Exhibit 1, even though the plaint did not say so and the documents did not support that link.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court answered all four substantial questions of law in favour of the defendants (appellants). It set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 passed in Title Appeal No. 85 of 2014 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Naugachia, and restored the Trial Court’s judgment dated 11.03.2014 in Title Suit No. 39 of 2008. The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed, and the Second Appeal was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for buyers and sellers of land in Bihar and elsewhere who deal through informal agreements. The Patna High Court shows that when there is a registered sale deed and a later unregistered document, courts will look very carefully at the wording of both documents and the signatures.
If a party claims that an unregistered agreement is only an “extension” of a past registered deed, that claim must clearly appear in the documents or pleadings. Courts will not assume it. Also, if a trial court finds a document to be forged or doubtful after comparing signatures, an appellate court cannot overturn that finding casually without strong reasons.
The ruling reinforces that a buyer seeking specific performance must satisfy two basic requirements: the agreement must be genuine, and the buyer must strictly prove the terms relied on, especially about possession and time limits. Without this, even citations about admissibility of unregistered agreements cannot help.
For ordinary citizens, the message is simple: for land deals, insist on proper, registered documents and clear boundaries. Do not rely only on informal or unregistered papers, as they may fail in court if challenged.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the plaintiff enforce the alleged unregistered agreement dated 02.11.2007 as an extension of the 2002 registered sale deed and seek specific performance for 1 acre 53 decimals of land?
Answer: No. The Court held that Exhibit 2 was a fresh, unregistered agreement, not an extension of Exhibit 1. It was not proved to be genuine, did not mention possession, and could not alter the terms of the registered deed. - Issue: Was the plaintiff’s suit barred or otherwise affected by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act because he claimed possession on the basis of an unregistered agreement?
Answer: The Court held that Exhibit 2, being a fresh agreement that did not recite possession, was not hit in the manner argued by the defendant, but at the same time it could not be used to claim lawful possession or relief. The suit, based on an invalid and unproved agreement, was not maintainable. - Issue: Did the First Appellate Court have authority to treat the 2002 registered sale deed as also a registered agreement for sale of the remaining land, contrary to the pleadings and recitals?
Answer: No. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court had gone beyond the plaintiff’s case, misread the documents, and exercised its appellate powers perversely. Its judgment was set aside and the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit was restored.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Dr. Arun Kumar Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Radha Devi, 2015 (3) PLJR 407 (Patna High Court) – relied on to hold that terms of a registered document can be varied only by another registered document.
- Radha Krishna Prasad v. Ram Bilas Prasad, 2024 (4) PLJR 672 – cited by the plaintiff; this judgment in turn relied on Supreme Court decisions regarding admissibility of unregistered agreements in suits for specific performance.
- R. Hemlata v. Kashturi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 381 – Supreme Court decision on admissibility of unregistered agreements for specific performance.
- K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 – Supreme Court decision holding that an unregistered document required to be registered can still be admitted to prove a contract in a suit for specific performance.
Case Details
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 248 of 2017
Case Title: Putul Devi & Ors. v. Bimal Kumar Sah
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Khatim Reza
Date of Judgment: 24.11.2025
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 180
Nature of the Case: Second appeal against decree in title appeal (specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property)
Advocates:
- For the appellants (defendant’s legal heirs): Mr. Waliur Rahman, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
- For the respondent (original plaintiff): Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
