JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, Advocate, for appellant; and Sri Siddharth and Sri A.K. Singh, Advocates, for respondents. 2. This is plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 41 of 1991 initially for seeking permanent injunction. Subsequently with the amendment of plaint, the plaintiff sought specific performance of contract for sale of disputed property executed on 12.11.1976 and also to enforce a private settlement between the parties dated 7.2.1991. Trial Court decreed the suit but Lower Appellate Court has reversed the decree of Trial Court, in appeal, and has dismissed the suit. 3. This Court formulated following substantial questions of law, while hearing this appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.: "Whether Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended to its application to the State of U.P. w.e.f. 1.1.1977 requires even the understanding/compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties to resolve the issue of execution of the sale-deed in terms of the original agreement to sell dated 12.11.1976 to be compulsorily registered inasmuch it was not an independent document separate from the original agreement for the performance of which the suit was filed?" 4. The facts in brief giving rise to dispute in question may be summarized as under. 5. Plait case set up by plaintiff is that defendant no. 1 Chatar Singh was a bhumidhar having transferable rights of property in dispute, details whereof were given on the foot of plaint. The defendant no. 1 purchased the said land vide sale-deed dated 12.9.1966 from previous owner Sri Amir Chand for a total consideration of Rs. 2720/-. An agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 on 12.11.1976 for transfer of aforesaid property to plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Entire amount of consideration was paid by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 at the time of execution of agreement and in part performance thereof, physical and vacant possession of land was delivered by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff. As per the term of agreement, sale-deed of land was to be executed within 15 years from the date of agreement, at the option of plaintiff and defendant no. 1, who was supposed to obtain permission to sale property in dispute, from competent authority. It was necessary for execution of sale-deed. The sale-deed dated 12.9.1966, whereby defendant no. As per the term of agreement, sale-deed of land was to be executed within 15 years from the date of agreement, at the option of plaintiff and defendant no. 1, who was supposed to obtain permission to sale property in dispute, from competent authority. It was necessary for execution of sale-deed. The sale-deed dated 12.9.1966, whereby defendant no. 1 had purchased the land from original owner, was also handed over by him to the plaintiff. 6. Plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, sale-deed could not be executed since defendant no. 1 had not obtain permission from competent authority to sell the land. Plaintiff came to know subsequently that defendant no. 1 has sold his house and other property and has settled at Meerut and with the collusion of defendant no. 2 want to get a sale-deed executed in favour of defendant no. 2. Having got this knowledge plaintiff, with some respective persons of Panchayat, met defendant no. 1. A settlement was written, duly signed by parties, including the persons who formed Panchayat, on 7.2.1991, wherein it was settled that plaintiff will pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant no. 1 who shall execute sale-deed in respect to land in question in favour of plaintiff. However, plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction for restraining defendant no. 1 from executing any sale-deed in respect to land in question and not to interfere in the possession of plaintiff. 7. The suit was presented in the Court below vide plaint dated 26.2.1991 and when suit was pending, defendant no. 1 transferred the land in question by way of sale deed dated 5.4.1991 to defendants no. 2 to 6, whereafter plaint was got amended by insertion of para 12-A and 12B and relief of specific performance of contract was also added. 8. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit by pleading that no agreement was executed by him on 12.11.1976 and the same is a forged and fictitious document. 9. Defendants no. 2 to 6 contested the suit contending that they are bona fide purchasers having no knowledge of any agreement between the parties for transfer of land by sell. Trial Court formulated 10 issues and issues no. 9. Defendants no. 2 to 6 contested the suit contending that they are bona fide purchasers having no knowledge of any agreement between the parties for transfer of land by sell. Trial Court formulated 10 issues and issues no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 substantial for deciding the dispute in suit are as under: ^^1- D;k izfroknh ua0 1 us 12-11-76 dks dksbZ bdjkjukek fu"ikfnr fd;k vkSj 20]000@& : i;s vfxze esa /kujkf'k ds izkIr fd;s vkSj oknh us izfroknh ua0 1 ls fookfnr Hkwfe dk dCtk izkIr fd;k\ 2- D;k oknh dHkh bdjkjukesa ds rgr cSukek djkus ds fy, bPNqd o rS;kj jgk\ 3- D;k izfroknh ua0 1 us izfroknh ua0 2 rk 6 ds gd esa dksbZ cSukek fu"ikfnr fd;k\ 4- D;k izfroknh ua0 2 rk 6 izfrQy ysdj vkSj mfpr tkap ds ckn fcuk dksbZ uksfVl izkIr fd;s lkn~Hkkfod dzsrk gS\** English Translation by the Court: "1. Whether the defendant no. 1 has on 12.11.1976 executed any agreement and received Rs. 20,000/- as advance, and whether the plaintiff has taken over possession of the disputed land from defendant no. 1? 2. Whether the plaintiff has ever been ready and willing for execution of sale-deed in adherence to the agreement? 3. Whether the defendant no. 1 has executed any sale-deed in favour of defendants 2 to 6?" 4. Whether defendants 2 to 6 are bonafide buyers for a consideration, without any notice being served post due verification?" 10. All the aforesaid issues were considered together. Issue no. 1, 2 and 3 were returned in positive and in favour of plaintiff and issue no. 4 was answered in negative, i.e., against the defendant. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.1999 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut. Thereagainst defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1999. Appellate Court looked into the issues formulated by Trial Court and issue no. 1 decided by Trial Court was concurred by Lower Appellate Court. However, thereafter considering issue no. 9, it held that settlement dated 7.2.1991 amounts to a new agreement. Since new agreement was not registered, therefore, it was neither admissible in evidence nor on that basis suit was maintainable and this issue no. 9 was returned against plaintiff. Issues no. 1 decided by Trial Court was concurred by Lower Appellate Court. However, thereafter considering issue no. 9, it held that settlement dated 7.2.1991 amounts to a new agreement. Since new agreement was not registered, therefore, it was neither admissible in evidence nor on that basis suit was maintainable and this issue no. 9 was returned against plaintiff. Issues no. 2 and 3 as decided by Trial Court were concurred by Lower Appellate Court but then in respect to issue no. 4, it dissented with the finding of Trial Court and held that defendants no. 2 to 6 were bona fide purchaser having no knowledge of earlier agreement, hence the transfer by sale in their favour was not prohibited by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882"). The issues no. 7 and 10 in the light of above finding of Lower Appellate Court were reconsidered and Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the suit for specific performance, decreed the same for return of consideration of amount of Rs. 20 thousand along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent from the date agreement dated 12.11.1976 was executed. 11. Learned counsels for parties appearing before this Court did not dispute that there existed an agreement for sale executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 dated 12.11.1976. On this aspect, the concurrent findings have been recorded by both the Courts below and learned counsels appearing before this Court did not place anything so as to pursue this Court to take any other view. Nothing has been argued before this Court also to show that the payment of consideration under the agreement dated 12.11.1976 was not made. Since issue no. 1 formulated by Trial Court was concurred by Lower Appellate Court, it also stand held by both the Courts below that pursuant to agreement dated 12.11.1976, the possession of property in dispute was also given to plaintiff in furtherance of part performance of the agreement and payment of consideration to the vendor. It was open to the parties to get the sale-deed executed in a period of 15 years i.e. upto 11.11.1991. It is in these circumstances, it has to be examined as to what was the status of the settlement dated 7.2.1991 between the parties, i.e., the plaintiff and defendant no. It was open to the parties to get the sale-deed executed in a period of 15 years i.e. upto 11.11.1991. It is in these circumstances, it has to be examined as to what was the status of the settlement dated 7.2.1991 between the parties, i.e., the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, which was also signed by some other persons forming Panchayat to settle the dispute privately. It is not the case of defendant no. 1 that in the Panchayat dated 7.2.1991 anything new has been contracted between the parties. The agreement for sale was already existing in furtherance whereof the amount of consideration, agreed between the parties under the agreement dated 12.11.1976, was already received by defendant no. 1 and the possession of disputed land was handed over to plaintiff. Only thing which was further settled between the parties that a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- toward consideration shall be paid by plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 and he shall execute the sale-deed. The execution of sale-deed was also a part of agreement dated 12.11.1976. Therefore, the additional benefit defendant no. 1 got was an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards consideration but in other words, the earlier agreement dated 12.11.1976 continued to hold the field. Lower Appellate Court has taken the view that settlement dated 7.2.1991 has the result of superseding the agreement dated 12.11.1976 but I find that the view taken by it in this regard is clearly erroneous. Under the settlement dated 7.2.1991, plaintiff was directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Though consideration of disputed property was made Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- paid under the agreement dated 12.11.1976, was taken to be a part of settlement dated 7.2.1991 and it was given due recognition and only an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be paid. Rest of the conditions of the agreement dated 12.11.1976 continued between the parties. It was, therefore, not a new contract for sale between the vendor and vendee, but a decision to implement agreement dated 12.11.1976 with the modification of consideration by enhancing from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and it was signed not only by vendor and vendee, but several others as is mentioned in the Trial Court's order itself. It was, therefore, not a new contract for sale between the vendor and vendee, but a decision to implement agreement dated 12.11.1976 with the modification of consideration by enhancing from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and it was signed not only by vendor and vendee, but several others as is mentioned in the Trial Court's order itself. The view, therefore, taken by Lower Appellate Court that the settlement dated 7.2.1991 was a new agreement superseding the earlier agreement dated 12.11.1976, in my view, is clearly erroneous. In fact the agreement dated 12.11.1976 itself, on its own force was liable to be enforced since the time given for execution of sale-deed was 15 years, i.e., by 11.11.1991. 12. It is also not disputed that the agreement dated 12.11.1976 was not required to be compulsorily registered since U.P. Amendment of Section 54 of Act, 1882 making agreement for sale compulsorily registrable came into force on 1.1.1977. The settlement between the parties duly signed by several members constituting Panchayat, cannot be said to be a new contract for sale so as to require compulsory registration under Section 54 of Act, 1882 as amended in U.P. This view taken by Lower Appellate Court, in my view, is clearly erroneous. The aforesaid question, therefore, is answered in negative and in favour of plaintiff-appellant. 13. In the result, the second appeal succeeds and is allowed. Judgment of Lower Appellate Court dated 27.11.2002 to the extent of allowing the appeal and setting aside judgment of Trial Court and dismissing suit is hereby set aside. Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 7.1.1999 is hereby restored and confirmed. The suit of plaintiff-appellant is decreed in terms it has been done by Trial Court. 14. No costs.