JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(R) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 12.05.2023, passed in Case No. RCSA/177/2023 by 20th District Judge, Indore whereby the appellant/plaintiff's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract against the respondents. The application for temporary injunction filed in this suit has been rejected as aforesaid and hence this appeal. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that it entered into an agreement to sale dated 23.10.2020, in respect of the land situated at village Mirjapur, Tehsil & Dist. Indore with the respondents No. 1-6, and prior to that a Sauda Pavati was also executed on 29.09.2018, with the respondent No.1 only. The total consideration was Rs.3,51,90,000/-, out of which the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.53,89,900/-. 4. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 03.02.2023, whereas the respondents No. 1-6 have sold the aforesaid land to respondent No.8 on 28.02.2023 i.e., immediately after filing of the suit. However, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rejected the application for temporary injunction on the ground that the agreement, the specific performance which is sought has not been registered, and also that the respondent No.8, the subsequent purchaser has already paid the entire sale consideration whereas the plaintiff has paid only a sum of Rs.53,89,900/-. 5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant could not file the suit for specific performance of contract earlier for the reason that in the agreement to sale itself, in para-4, it is clearly stipulated that a case is already pending in respect of the said land regarding the measurement and the entire amount shall be paid after the final order is passed in the measurement case and its information is conveyed to the plaintiff. It is submitted that since the plaintiff has already paid a huge sum of Rs.53,89,900/-, the learned Judge of the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that under Section 49 of the Registration Act in a case of specific performance of contract, registration of agreement is not necessary. It is submitted that since the plaintiff has already paid a huge sum of Rs.53,89,900/-, the learned Judge of the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that under Section 49 of the Registration Act in a case of specific performance of contract, registration of agreement is not necessary. It is also submitted that if the temporary injunction is not granted to the appellant, it would only give rise to multiplicity of the litigation. 6. Lastly, it is also submitted that the transaction of the defendants no.1 to 6 with defendant no.8 is a sham transaction which is also apparent from the fact that the petitioner was ready to give Rs.3,51,90,000/- for the land which has been allegedly sold by the defendants no.1 to 6 to the defendant no.8 for a sum of Rs.2,17,38,000/- and is also trying to justify the same. 7. In support of his submission, counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. reported as 2010(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 500 and also on Manish & Anr. vs. Anil Kumar reported as 2015(2) MPLJ 645 . 8. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent No.8. It is submitted that the respondent No.8 has already paid the entire sale consideration through RTGS, and the sale deed has already been registered in his name. In such circumstances, no prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff on the basis of an unregistered document. 9. Counsel has also referred to Section 17(1)(b)(f) of the Registration (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2014 wherein it is provided that registration of a document any document which purports or operates to effect any contract for sale of any immovable property is essentially required to be registered. 10. Shri A.S. Bahrawat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1-6 has also submitted that initially a Sauda Pavati was executed on 29.09.2018, and the plaintiff has paid only a sum of Rs.18,50,000/-, and by paying the aforesaid amount to the defendants No.1-6, a false statement has been made that he has already paid a sum of Rs.53,89,900/- to the defendant. Thus, it is submitted that the application for temporary injunction has been rightly rejected. 11. Thus, it is submitted that the application for temporary injunction has been rightly rejected. 11. Counsel for the defendants No.1-6 has also submitted that in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the plaintiff has mentioned that the entire sale consideration has already been paid to the defendants which is a false statement. It is also submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned judge of the Trial Court in holding that a suit of specific performance cannot be brought on the basis of an unregistered sale deed which has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi passed in Civil Appeal No. 6733/2022. 12. In rebuttal, counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far as the amendment in Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2014 is concerned, a similar amendment was also made in the State of Tamil Nadu which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of R. Hemalatha vs. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304. Counsel has also placed reliance on M/s. Julien Educational Trust vs. Sourendra Kumar Roy & Ors. 2009(8) Supreme 450 . 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. From the record, it is apparent that admittedly the suit for specific performance of contract has been filed on the basis of an agreement dated 23.10.2020, which is not registered, and the learned Judge of the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 12.05.2023 has held that the relief of temporary injunction cannot be granted to the appellant on the ground that the agreement is unregistered, by relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Singh (supra) and also holding that the land in question is already sold by defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.8 through a registered sale deed. Learned judge has also relied upon Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to hold that the plaintiff's right are already saved, and no case for temporary injunction is made out against the appellant/plaintiff. 15. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Singh (supra) is concerned, on which heavy reliance is placed by the counsel for the respondent, the relevant paras of the same read as under:- '5. 15. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Singh (supra) is concerned, on which heavy reliance is placed by the counsel for the respondent, the relevant paras of the same read as under:- '5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction only, which was claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996. However, it is required to be noted that the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 was an unregistered document/agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper. Therefore, as such, such an unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence. 6. Having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counterclaim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting.'' (emphasis supplied) 16. On the other hand, in the case of R.Hemalatha (supra) decided on 10.04.2023, it has been held that a suit for specific performance of contract is maintainable on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. The relevant paras of the same read as under:- '19. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. On the other hand, in the case of R.Hemalatha (supra) decided on 10.04.2023, it has been held that a suit for specific performance of contract is maintainable on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. The relevant paras of the same read as under:- '19. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. The short question posed for the consideration of this Court is effect of Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu by which Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act has been inserted and instruments of agreement relating to sale of immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/-and upwards is made compulsorily registrable and whether such unregistered agreement relating to sale of immovable property can be received in evidence in a suit for specific performance? 20. While answering the aforesaid issues and appreciating the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable prior to the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2012 and Section 17 post Amendment Act, 2012, are required to be referred to which are as under. 21. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, post Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012 reads as under: '17. 21. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, post Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012 reads as under: '17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.-(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which,, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which,, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:- (a) instruments of gift of immovable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; [(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property : ] Provided that the [State Government] may, by order published in the [Official Gazette], exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees. [(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (48 of 2001) and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.] (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to- (i) any composition deed; or (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or (v) [any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or (vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or (vii) any grant of immovable property by [Government]; or (viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or (ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or [(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or] (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer. [Explanation.-A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.] ' 22. By Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, Section 17(1)(g) has been inserted and 'explanation' to Section 17(2) has been omitted. Section 17(1)(g) as inserted by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, reads as under: '17(1)(g) instruments of agreement relating to sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. ' 23. Thus, on and after the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, as per Section 17(1)(g), instrument of agreement relating to sale of immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/-and upwards is required to be registered compulsorily. However, despite the same and despite the 'explanation' to sub-section (2) of Section 17 has been omitted, there is no corresponding amendment made to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Section 49 of the Registration Act is as under: '49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Trans fer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Trans fer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), *** or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.] ' 24. Thus, as per proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document affecting the immovable property and required by Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. 25. Thus, as per proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document affecting the immovable property and required by Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. 25. At this stage, the primary statement of objects and reasons to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, is also required to be referred to and considered. The primary statement of objects and reasons seem to suggest that amendment has been introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu bearing in mind the loss to the exchequer as public were executing the documents relating to sale of immovable property etc. on white paper or on stamp paper of nominal value. 26. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the proviso to Section 49 came to be inserted vide Act No. 21 of 1929 and thereafter, Section 17(1A) came to be inserted by Act No. 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001 by which the documents containing contracts to transfer or consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act is made compulsorily to be registered if they have been executed on or after 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then there shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A. So, the exception to the proviso to Section 49 is provided under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 49 with respect to the documents other than referred to in Section 17(1A) shall be applicable. 27. Under the circumstances, as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case on behalf of either of the parties that the document/Agreement to Sell in question would fall under the category of document as per Section 17(1 A) of the Registration Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly observed and held relying upon proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act that the unregistered document in question namely unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49.' (emphasis supplied) 17. A perusal of the decision rendered in the case of Balram Singh (supra) reveals that the Supreme Court has neither referred to any provision of law nor any previous judgement in observing that the plaintiff knew that on an unregistered agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed, and that is why the plaintiff has not sought any relief of specific performance of the agreement. This court is of the considered opinion that on bare perusal of Balram Singh (supra), it is also found that ithas been rendered in respect of a suit for permanent injunction only and not for the specific performance of contract., coupled with the fact that it has been rendered by the Supreme Court without referring to any provisions of law, thus, it cannot be an authority on a suit for specific performance of contract, and the observations made therein can only considered as the obiter dicta and not the ratio decidendi of the case. 18. So far s.17 of the Registration Act is concerned, it provides for the documents the registration of which is compulsory, the amended Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2014 is concerned, the same reads as under:- '17(1)(f) any document which purports or operates to effect any contract for sale of any immovable property.' 19. Which can be compared in juxtaposition to s.17(1)(g) of the Tamilnadu Act, 2012 which reads as under:- '' 17(1)(g) instruments of agreement relating to sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. ' 20. Which can be compared in juxtaposition to s.17(1)(g) of the Tamilnadu Act, 2012 which reads as under:- '' 17(1)(g) instruments of agreement relating to sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. ' 20. A perusal of the both these provisions clearly reveal that they are almost identical in nature, just differently worded, thus this Court finds that in the case of R.Hemalatha (supra), the Supreme Court has considered the effect of Section 49 of the Registration Act as also the effect of amendment made by the State of Tamil Nadu by which Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act has been inserted, which makes an agreement to sell an immovable property valued above Rs.100 compulsorily registrable, and it is held that this amendment will not affect the Proviso to Section 49, which allows unregistered sale agreements to be received in evidence. 21. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court the judgement in the case of R.Hemalatha (supra) governs the field in respect of the suits for specific performance of contract which have been filed on the basis of an unregistered document, and also covers the amended Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2014 which is akin to the Registration Act of Tamil Nadu. In such circumstances, even if the suit has been filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement, no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff to hold that it has no prima facie case. 22. Apart from that, this issue is no more res-intigra and has already been dealt with by the Supreme Court on prior occasions, viz., in the case of S. Kaladevi (supra) and which has also been referred to by this court in the case of Manish and another (supra) to hold that an unregistered document is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of contract. 23. 23. So far as the finding recorded by the trial Court that defendants No.1 to 6 have already sold the land through a registered sale deed to defendant No.8 and the protection under Section 52 is also available to the plaintiff is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit available to a plaintiff under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be a reason to deny the relief of temporary injunction specially when the plaintiff has proved his/her prima facie case and there are chances that the property may again be sold to some third party, which would certainly give rise to multiplicity of the proceedings. In such circumstances, the finding recorded by the trail Court cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 24. Accordingly, impugned order dated 12.05.2023 is hereby set aside, the appeal stands allowed and it is directed that till the final disposal of the civil suit, the parties shall maintain the status quo. Appeal stands disposed of.