JUDGMENT : 1. The instant regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant, who was defendant No. 1 before the learned Court below (hereinafter to be called as “defendant No. 1”), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 29.03.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 16/13, whereby findings recorded in judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 72/2006 were reversed and defendant No. 1 was directed to get the sale deed executed qua the suit property in favour of respondent No. 1, who was the plaintiff before the learned Court below (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiff”). 2. Briefly the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 217/259, Khasra No. 165, 167, 940, 1113/942/1, 1117/959, 1390/1115, 958, 1119/960, 1121/961, 1123/962, 1233/963, 1125/964, 965, 966, 1470/1394, 1463/1401, kita 16, measuring 191800, situated at Mohal Baror, Pargna Gudial, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter to be called as the “suit property”) is recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and proforma defendants No. 2 to 14. Defendant No. 1 is having share of land comprised in Khasra No. 796/3980, measuring 31918 bighas in the entire land. He had a pucca house consisting of three rooms, comprised in Khasra No. 1117/959 and 1173/962, measuring 00600 bighas which is a part of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 sold the aforesaid house alongwith courtyard and kitchen garden for a total consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/-vide agreement dated 14.08.2004 to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is stated to be husband of plaintiff’s cousin, being her maternal aunt’s daughter. Taking undue advantage of relationship the plaintiff claims that she had fallen into trap of defendant No. 1 in advancing aforesaid amount. Notice was issued to defendant No. 1 for specific performance of contract, but while replying the same he denied the same, whereas possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 14.08.2004. Defendant No. 1 was time and again asked to get the sale deed executed or registered and sanction mutation in favour of the plaintiff, but he was adamant. Defendant No. 1 was time and again asked to get the sale deed executed or registered and sanction mutation in favour of the plaintiff, but he was adamant. Cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the month of July, 2005 when defendant denied execution of agreement and also in the month of June, 2006, when he again refused to comply with the same. Therefore, the plaintiff sought decree for specific performance of contract dated 14.08.2004. The plaintiff also sought permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendant No. 1 from alienating the suit property. 3. Claim of the plaintiff was resisted and contested by defendant No. 1 and preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts were taken. On merits, it has been pleaded that agreement does not reveal total area alongwith the built up portion which is being claimed to have been sold to the plaintiff and no suit can be filed on the basis of agreement in question. It has been further pleaded by defendant No. 1 that he never undertook to get the sale deed registered and sanction mutation in favour of the plaintiff. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. 4. In replication, averments of the written statement are denied and that of the plaint are reaffirmed. 5. On 08.05.2008, the learned Court below framed the following issues for determination and adjudication : “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of specific performance of contract dated 14.08.2004, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, if so, its effect? OPD 6. Relief.” 6. After deciding issues No. 1 and 5 in negative, issue No. 2 partly yes and issues No. 3 & 4 in affirmative, suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed and defendant No. 1 was restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. OPD 6. Relief.” 6. After deciding issues No. 1 and 5 in negative, issue No. 2 partly yes and issues No. 3 & 4 in affirmative, suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed and defendant No. 1 was restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Subsequently, the plaintiff maintained an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which was allowed with costs and defendant No. 1 was directed to get the sale deed executed qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff as per Order 21 Rule 34 at her expense within a period of 30 days. Hence the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: “Whether agreement Ex. PW2/B dated 14.08.2004 specifically states that the defendant or his legal representatives have no concern with the property meaning thereby nothing remains to be done by the defendant and further when there is no condition of executing the sale deed in the agreement, whether the learned Additional District Judge is justified to pass a decree for specific performance and directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed within thirty days and the findings are perverse? 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned Fist Appellate Court has not appreciated the law and facts correctly and the findings are perverse, as the agreement Ext. PW2/ B was a complete document and as there is nothing in the agreement that the appellant had to get the sale deed executed, he cannot be asked to execute the sale deed. He has further argued that possession is with the respondent and she is also owner of the same. 8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has argued that as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the appellant was duty bound to get the sale deed registered, as the agreement itself is a agreement to sale and complete consideration has been paid. He has further argued that statement of DW1 makes it clear that findings as recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are in accordance with law. 9. He has further argued that statement of DW1 makes it clear that findings as recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are in accordance with law. 9. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that suit for specific performance act only allow to make the other party to perform the specific act and not to perform the act for which he is not bound and in these circumstance the instant appeal be allowed. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the records carefully. 11. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff tendered her evidence through affidavit and reiterated that she purchased the house existing over Khasra No. 1117/959, 1173/962 over 000600 bighas land from defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/- and in this regard, an agreement, dated 14.08.2004 was also executed between them, which was scribed by defendant No. 1 himself and Karam Chand and Amar Singh were witnesses to the agreement. It has been stated by the plaintiff that she handed over the whole amount in advance and also obtained the possession at the time of agreement. However, defendant No. 1 refused to get the sale deed registered in her favour. The plaintiff also tendered the copy of jamabandi, Ext. PB, notice, Ext. PC, postal receipt, Ext. PD, acknowledgment, Ext. PE and receipt thereof Ext. PF. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that the agreement does not bear anything with regard to the registration or mutation. She also admitted the suggestion that the agreement does not bear the description of the land. 12. PW2, Karam Chand, tendered his evidence through affidavit, Ext. PW2/ A and deposed that he was witness to agreement, dated 14.08.2004 between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The agreement was scribed by defendant No. 1. The parties signed the agreement in his presence and thereafter he alongwith Amar Singh also put their signatures thereon. 13. Defendant No. 1 also tendered his evidence through affidavit, Ext. DW1/ A and deposed that he handed over the possession of the house to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/on the same day and since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the house. He further deposed that he never undertook to get the sale deed registered or to effect the mutation. DW1/ A and deposed that he handed over the possession of the house to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/on the same day and since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the house. He further deposed that he never undertook to get the sale deed registered or to effect the mutation. In cross-examination, he identified his signatures over agreement, Ext. PW2/ B. He admitted the suggestion that he had no concern with the disputed property after the agreement. He also deposed that he has no objection if the plaintiff is declared as owner of the disputed property. 14. If the evidence of defendant No. 1 is seen he has specifically stated in his evidence that consideration amount was received, possession of the property was transferred and the plaintiff is exclusive owner of the suit property, but he has also stated in his affidavit that he is not bound to get the sale deed registered, as it was not the condition in agreement (Ikrarnama). It has also come on record that the plaintiff is sister-in-law of defendant No. 1. In these circumstances, this Court has to consider the agreement and its effect. 15. The agreement, Ext. PW2/ B is definitely a sale deed and the money was paid and received as per the evidence on record, possession was delivered and the plaintiff was acknowledged as owner of the property by defendant No. 1 as per evidence on record. Thus, defendant No. 1 had an intention to transfer the ownership of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. 16. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides as under: “54. “Sale” defined “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a revision or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale. A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place in terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in, or charge on such property.” 17. As the value of the property is more than one hundred rupees, the same was required to be registered and since the plaintiff being purchaser of the suit property paid the entire consideration to defendant No. 1, he being seller was bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and get the same registered. Even though, the said condition was not incorporated in the agreement, then also relief can be claimed and granted to the purchaser, whose title has not been perfected only because of non-registration of sale deed and execution thereof by taking hold of Section 55 (1) (d) of Transfer of Property Act. 18. In these circumstances, this Court answers the substantial question of law, as framed vide order dated 29.05.2018 by holding that the learned first Appellate Court was justified in passing the decree for specific performance and directing defendant No. 1 to execute the registered sale deed as value of the suit property was more than one hundred rupees, in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 19. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.