JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer dated September 13, 1974 in it suit for eviction and arrears of rent. 2. The dispute relates to the house property situate at Ajmer and described in paragraph No. I of the plaint. Admittedly, this property once belonged to defendant Balu Ram, who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives who are appellants in this appeal before me. 3. In the year 1943, Balu Ram sold this property to the plaintiff-respondent Ganpat Lal vide sale-deed Ex. 7. A rent note was executed by Balu Ram in favour of the plaintiff on July 25, 1943, which is Ex. 2. in the year 1947, an agreement was executed by the plaintiff Ganpat Lal to sell this property to Balu Ram for Rs. 3,000/-. The sale price was received by the plaintiff Ganpat Lal, but it appears that no sale-deed was executed in pursuance of the agreement to sell which is Ex. A.1. On July 16, 1955, Balu Ram executed a rent-note in favour of the plaintiff Ganpat Lal. This rent-note is Ex. 1. The plaintiff Ganpat Lal received rent vide receipt Ex. 3 dated June 12, 1956 from the defendant Balu Ram. In the litigation between the plaintiff Ganpat Lal and one Jagannath, defendant Balu Ram made a statement on January 12, 1957 wherein he admitted himself to be the tenant of the house in dispute. This statement is Ex. 8. Similarly in an application under Order 21 rule 100 Civil Procedure Code Balu Ram admitted himself to be the tenant of the plaintiff Ganpat Lal. This application is dated August 1, 1956 and is marked as Ex. 9. The genuineness of these documents are not in dispute before me. 4. The plaintiff Ganpat Lal instituted the present suit on January 9, 1970 for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 504/- and mesne profits for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 73.50, totalling Rs. 577.50. The plaintiff also claimed eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent for more than six months as well as on the ground that the defendant Balu Ram had sub-let the property to one Mangi Lal without his permission. 504/- and mesne profits for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 73.50, totalling Rs. 577.50. The plaintiff also claimed eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent for more than six months as well as on the ground that the defendant Balu Ram had sub-let the property to one Mangi Lal without his permission. It was alleged in the plaint that the tenancy was oral accompanied with delivery of possession and it commenced from 11th day of every English Calendar month. The defendant Balu Ram as well as defendant Mangi Lal resisted the suit and traversed all material allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded by defendant 13, Balu Ram that he was occupying the suit premises by virtue of a registered deed dated April 17, 1947 (Ex. A.1) in his own right and has become its absolute owner. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court struck the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant No. 1 is the tenant of the plaintiff ? 2. Whether defendant No. 1 committed defaults ? 3. Whether defendant No. 1 Sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2. 4. Whether the defendant No. 1 has become absolute owner as alleged in para 10 of the written statement ? 5. Relief. The trial court recorded finding on issues Nos. 1 and 4 in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer, reversed the findings of the trial court on issues Nos. 1 and 4 and passed a decree for eviction on the ground that the defendant Balu Rant had committed default in payment of rent for more than six months and that he had sub-let the property to Mangi Lal without the permission of the landlord. The learned Additional District Judge also decreed the suit for Rs. 504/- as arrears of rent. It is against this decree that the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant Balu Ram have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants, has urged that the document Ex. A. 1 is not only an agreement to sell but a completed document of sale, since the whole consideration for which the house was sold, was paid by Balu Ram to the plaintiff Ganpat Lal. The learned Additional District Judge has 'discussed this point very exhaustively. He has observed,- " ..........................Ex. A. 1 is not only an agreement to sell but a completed document of sale, since the whole consideration for which the house was sold, was paid by Balu Ram to the plaintiff Ganpat Lal. The learned Additional District Judge has 'discussed this point very exhaustively. He has observed,- " ..........................Ex. A. 1 is an agreement to sell. It cannot possibly take the place of a sale-deed. The recital in this document shows that the plaintiff had agreed to sell this property within three months and had given a right to the defendant No. 1 to get the sale deed executed trough the court if the plaintiff fails to execute the sale-deed within the specified period. The intention of the parties in this matter is clear and the document cannot amount to a completed sale. Registration of an agreement cannot convert it into a deed of transfer. Similarly, the payment of full consideration under the agreement does not make the defendant No. 1 an absolute woner of the property." I have carefully gone through the document Ex. A. 1. This is a registered document. Its important recitals run as under,- HINDI MATTER 333991 In constructing an instrument in order to decide whether it is an agreement to sell or a contract of sale, cumulative effect of all the recitals contained therein and the relevant facts have to be taken into account. The mere fact that the document is styled as an agreement or that there is offer to execute and register a sale-deed at a later date may not take away the effect of a clear recital transferring the title-in-interest of the vendor to the vendee or change the character of document from a sale to an agreement to sell. In the present case, reading the document as a whole. I find no clear recital transferring the title to the vendee. On the contrary, it contains clear promise between the parties to get the sale-deed executed and registered within three months. The document also recites the consequences of not getting the document registered within the said period. In my opinion, by no stretch of reasoning the document can be held to be a completed sale. 6. Mr. Singhvi next urges that at the time of the execution of Ex. The document also recites the consequences of not getting the document registered within the said period. In my opinion, by no stretch of reasoning the document can be held to be a completed sale. 6. Mr. Singhvi next urges that at the time of the execution of Ex. A. 1, the defendant Balu Ram was in possession of the property and under section 53-A of the Transfer of property Act, the agreement to sell must be treated as a sale. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act reads:- "53-A. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, ............................ .. then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefore by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract : ................................................................................... ......................................................" Undoubtedly the transferee Balu Ram was in possession of the property in dispute as a tenant of the transferor Ganpat Lal at the time of execution of the agreement to sell Ex. A. 1, but, there is overwhelming evidence in this case to show that he did not continue in possession of the property in part-performance of the contract. This is apparent from the rent-note executed by Balu Ram on July 16, 1955, which is Ex. 1. Then there is a receipt Ex. 3 by which rent was paid by Balu Ram to Ganpat Lal on June 12, 1956. Again, Balu Ram made statement in the case pending between the plaintiff and one Jagnnath that he was in occupation of the house as it tenant. That statement is Ex. 1. Then there is a receipt Ex. 3 by which rent was paid by Balu Ram to Ganpat Lal on June 12, 1956. Again, Balu Ram made statement in the case pending between the plaintiff and one Jagnnath that he was in occupation of the house as it tenant. That statement is Ex. 8 and is dated January 12, 1957. There is also an application dated August 1, 1956 made by Balu Ram wherein he admitted himself to be the tenant of the plaintiff Ganpat Lal. All these documents leave no doubt that Balu Ram did not continue in possession of the property in part-performance of the contract. Mr. Singhvi invited my attention to written statement Ex. A. 2 filed by Ganpat Lal on December 1, 1947 in the suit filed by Jagannath against Ganpat Lal. In that written statement Ganpat Lal admitted that the house was owned and possessed by Balu Ram. This written statement was filed in the same year in which Ex. A. I agreement to sell was executed. It is significant to note that although Ganpat Lal appeared in the witness Box, no question was put to him how he admitted Balu Ram to be the owner of the house when the sale-deed had not been executed in pursuance of the agreement to sell Ex. A. 1. Had such a question been put, Ganpat Lai might have given a satisfactory explanation. That apart, much importance cannot be laid on the written statement Ex. A. 2 in view of the subsequent conduct of Balu Ram in executing the rent-note and making other admissions as discussed above. 7. Mr. Singhvi next urged that the plaintiff in his plaint came with the case of oral tenancy between the parties, but he has relied upon rent-notes. I find no substance in the above contention. A bare perusal of his statement would reveal that according to him the tenancy between the parties came into existence in the year 1964 or 1965. No rent-note was executed by the defendant Balu Ram in the said years. The plaintiff relied upon the rent-notes of 1943 and 1955 simply to rebut the case of the defendant relating, to his plea of part performance of the contract. 8. The last argument of Mr. Singhvi is that the plaintiff has failed to prove that oral tenancy came into existence between the parties. The plaintiff relied upon the rent-notes of 1943 and 1955 simply to rebut the case of the defendant relating, to his plea of part performance of the contract. 8. The last argument of Mr. Singhvi is that the plaintiff has failed to prove that oral tenancy came into existence between the parties. This contention is also devoid of force. The plaintiff has stated that the tenancy between the parties came into existence in the year 1964 or 1965 and he is corroborated by PW. 3 Phoolchand.There is no force in this appeal, and it is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******