Judgment Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Dalakoti, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri D.S. Patni the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and had filed a suit for injunction, being suit no. 336 of 1997, alleging that the defendant is the tenant of a portion of the premises and that the plaintiff had terminated his tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent and that instead of vacating, the defendant was threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences. Not only that, the plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had started encroaching upon the possession of the remaining property which the plaintiff had in his possession. Consequently, a suit for permanent injunction was filed praying that the defendant should be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and from interfering in the construction so raised by the plaintiff. This suit is pending and, in the year 2001, the plaintiff filed suit no. 383 of 2001 for eviction, possession and for arrears of rent and damages against the defendant contending therein that the tenancy of the defendant had been terminated and that he was liable to be evicted. In this suit for eviction and for possession, the defendant filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement and, based on that, the defendant was in possession and, consequently, the issue being directly and substantially in issue and being the same in the previously instituted suit between the same parties the subsequent suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The Trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that the matter in issue in both the suit is directly and substantially in issue and being the same, consequently, stayed further proceedings in suit no; 483 of 2001. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicates that no Court would proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. In the present case, the first suit is for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the remaining portion with the plaintiff and from restraining the defendant from interfering in the construction so raised by the plaintiff. The second suit is for eviction of the defendant from the potion in which he was given the tenancy. The cause of action in both the suits are entirely different. There is no common issue directly or substantially in issue in both the suits. The mere fact that the defendant had raised a common plea in both the suits does not mean that a common issue is directly or substantially in issue in both the suits. 5. The court finds that the trial court was impressed upon the stand taken by the defendant, namely, that there is an agreement to sell by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the agreement enclosed by the defendant was an unregistered agreement and, such agreement, which in any case, cannot be recognized in a Court of law could not create any interest or charge on the property. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Lachaman Nepak and others Vs. Badankayalu Syama Babu Subudhi and another, AIR 1989 ORISSA 154. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some force. The property does not vest in the transferee until its registration is effected. No title passes on the basis of mere unregistered agreement to sell. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there is a palpable error in the impugned order of the Court below which cannot be sustained. The property does not vest in the transferee until its registration is effected. No title passes on the basis of mere unregistered agreement to sell. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there is a palpable error in the impugned order of the Court below which cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.