JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil First Appeal under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1994, amended on 2.9.1994, passed by A.D.J. No. 1, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 238/1991, by which the said Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of the agreement. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement with the allegations that the defendant appellants No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Kanwar, was holding power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Vijay Gupta. She agreed to sale the disputed property to the defendant appellant No. 2 Shri Madan Lal. The defendant appellant Madan Lal entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff of the disputed property for Rs. 1,50,000/- and obtained Rs. 50,000/- in advance against the said agreement. It was agreed between the parties that rest of the amount would be paid at the time of registration. The defendants obtained Rs. 80,000/- on 3.9.1991, and assured the plaintiff-respondent for getting the sale-deed registered within a period of 20 days after obtaining N.O.C. from U.I.T. Ajmer. Again the defendants obtained Rs. 20,000/- on 11.11.1991, and assured the plaintiff respondent for getting the sale-deed registered within 15 days. On 28.1.1991, possession of the disputed property was given to the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff from time to time requested the defendants getting the sale-deed registered, but when, no heed was paid by the defendants, the plaintiff respondent filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement. The defendants in their written statement did not deny the facts mentioned in Para No. 2 of the plaint. In Para No. 18 of the written statement the defendants stated that in the record of U.I.T. Ajmer, Smt. Vijay Gupta has been shown as owner of the property. She did not sold the disputed property to the defendant No. 1. Under such circumstances, no decree for specific performance of the agreement can be passed against the defendants. The A.D.J. No. 1, Ajmer, after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. This decree has been challenged by the defendants-appellants before this Court in appeal. 3. Under such circumstances, no decree for specific performance of the agreement can be passed against the defendants. The A.D.J. No. 1, Ajmer, after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. This decree has been challenged by the defendants-appellants before this Court in appeal. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that defendants-appellants are not the owners of the property and by virtue of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the 'Act'), no decree for specific performance can be passed against them. He further submits that the agreement dated 28.1.1991, marked Annexure 2 is neither registered nor properly stamped and as such the same should not have been admitted in evidence. The learned Judge committed serious illegality in admitting the agreement dated 28.1.1991 in evidence and in passing a decree on the basis of that agreement.On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that it has been proved from the evidence on record that appellant No. 1 Smt. Vijay Kanwar was holding power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Vijay Gupta. She executed the agreement marked Annexure 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, who executed agreement for sale of disputed property in favour of plaintiff. She also executed the sale-deed marked Annexure 3 and also submitted an application before the U.I.T. Ajmer, marked Annexure 12. These documents are not denied by the defendants. Not only this, the defendant appellant No. 1 did not appear in the witness-box. Smt. Vijay Gupta, being aware of the suit neither filed any application under Order 1 Rule 10 nor filed any appeal. He submits that from all these documents it appears that Smt. Pushpa Kanwar, being holder of power of attorney was competent to sale the disputed property. She handed-over possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff-respondent. Under such circumstances, Section 17 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submits that no objection under Section 36 of the Indian Stamps Act was raised by the defendants when the agreement marked Annexure 2 was taken in evidence and was exhibited Registration of agreement to sale is not required as provided in Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 4. I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The document marked Annexure 1 dated 25.7.1990, executed by defendant No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Kanwar, in favour of defendant No. 2 Madan Lal has not been denied. The agreement marked Annexure 2 dated 20.8.1993, executed by defendant Madan Lal in favour of the plaintiff is also not denied. The sale-deed Ex. which was executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is also not denied. The application dated 3.9.1997, marked Annexure 12, submitted by defendant-appellant Smt. Pushpa Kanwar, before the U.I.T. Ajmer, is also not denied. From the aforesaid documents, it is apparent that Smt. Pushpa Kanwar was holding power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Vijay Gupta and was competent to transfer the disputed property to the plaintiff respondent. Possession of the property was also given to the plaintiff. Smt. Vijay Gupta never raised any objection uptill now. Under these circumstances, I do not find force in the arguments of counsel of appellants that since Smt. Pushpa Kanwar was not owner of the disputed property, she had no right to enter an agreement of sale and no decree on that basis can be passed for specific performance of agreement. As the defendants did not raise any objection when the documents marked Annexure was admitted in evidence, they can not raise any objection that the document was not duly stamped. I do not find any merit in the argument of the counsel for the appellant that since agreement of sale is not registered and as such it is not admissible in evidence. The case is governed by Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.There is no merit in the appeal and as such the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed. *******