Judgment Heard finally. 2. Admit. 3. Refusal to grant injunction in terms of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for specific performance, where the learned Judge accepts possession of the plaintiff, is questioned in the Appeal from Order. 4. The learned Judge basically travelled to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The legal position is at the stage of interim relief when the Court has primarily recorded a finding of possession of plaintiff, it was imperative for the learned Judge to have clamped injunction notwithstanding the bar created by Section 17 of the Registration Act. This legal position has been indicated by Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of S.Kaladevi V. Somsundaram and ors., reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 401. The Honourable Supreme Court has referred five principles indicated in the matter of K.B. Saha and Sons (P) Ltd. V. Development Consultant Ltd., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 564 , in paragraph 34, as under: "1) A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2) Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3) A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible form, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4) A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5) If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose." and added sixth principle namely, "that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance." That apart, it has been again indicated in the matter of Sriniwasn Vs. Kattipuran, reported in 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. SC 331, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed, "Going by the ratio of the above mentioned decision (Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, AIR 2005 SC 104 ), it is clear that the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, was justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo in the matter of transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest, as prima facie it has been proved that the respondent was trying to sell the property in dispute to a third party, thus alienating the rights of the property in dispute, which would have caused irreparable damage to the appellant." 5. The scope and applicability as considered by the learned Judge was not warranted at the prima facie stage of the matter, when in particular, learned Judge has recorded an affirmative finding about possession of the plaintiff based on agreement of sale by parting earnest. This is more so, even if the defendant (respondent in the appeal) has disputed existence of execution of agreement of sale. 6. In the result, the order refusing injunction is set aside. Injunction is clamped against the respondent not to cause any disturbance in the possession, enjoyment of the plaintiff/appellant till disposal of the suit. The respondent shall also not create third party interest in relation to the suit property. Learned Judge seized with the matter shall expeditiously dispose of the same within a time frame of one year of receiving the communication. Appeal from Order allowed accordingly. No costs.