JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant appeal is being finally decided. 2. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Ananya Shukla, for the appellant, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, for the respondent no.2 and Sri Ajay Kumar Patel, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Adarsh Bhushan, for the respondent no.1. 3. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 31.05.2024 whereby Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahr has rejected the injunction application Paper 6-C2 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC in Original Suit No.1054 of 2022. 4. Assailing the order impugned, Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, submits that father of the defendant-respondent no.2, namely, Sri C.D. Bajpai was owner of an Industrial Plot No.C-4 and he had agreed to sell the same to the appellant for a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- (rupees seventy lac only). It is pleaded in the plaint that a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (rupees thirty five lac only) was paid by the appellant to the father of defendant-respondent no.2 and despite assurances given by him, when sale deed was not executed, the suit in question was filed claiming a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent no.2 to execute the sale deed after receiving balance amount of consideration. During the pendency of the suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was filed with a prayer that the defendants be restrained from interfering in possession of the appellant, inasmuch as, according to the appellant, in lieu of part payment, he had been delivered possession of the property. 5. The trial court has rejected the injunction application by observing that, in fact, the suit was filed in the nature of a suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement, however, in order to avoid liability to pay court fees, the relief has been cleverly couched in the form of mandatory injunction. After placing reliance on various authorities, the trial court has observed that in absence of a written agreement and for want of its registration, as per the law applicable in the State of U.P., the appellant has no case. After placing reliance on various authorities, the trial court has observed that in absence of a written agreement and for want of its registration, as per the law applicable in the State of U.P., the appellant has no case. Submission of appellant, however, is that once possession was delivered to the appellant, he was entitled to protect his possession and, therefore, rejection of injunction application is not according to law and Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would apply in favour of the appellant. 6. Per contra, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, submits that there being no written agreement between the appellant and the father of the defendant-respondent no.2, the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. He further submits that, at the most, the appellant might have a claim for refund of money in case he could succeed in establishing that the money had been paid in relation to the transaction of proposed sale, however, according to the Sri Trivedi, it was in respect of certain business transactions as disclosed in the objections against the injunction application and not concerning transfer of property. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that mandatory injunctions can be granted under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The said provision finds place in Chapter VIII and it applies when, in order to prevent breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing and grant of injunction to prevent such breach is always in the discretion of the court. In the instant case, admittedly, the suit in question has not been filed claiming a decree for specific performance of an agreement, probably for the reason that there is no written agreement between the parties. Appellant’s claim for relief of mandatory injunction based upon oral understanding requires to be dealt with in the light of law of the land. 8. Considering the arguments of Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, in relation to Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, this Court thinks it appropriate to deal with the legal proposition in that regard. 9. Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 provides for documents, registration whereof is compulsory. There is an amendment made by U.P. Act No.57 of 1979 by inserting clause (f) in Section 17(1). 9. Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 provides for documents, registration whereof is compulsory. There is an amendment made by U.P. Act No.57 of 1979 by inserting clause (f) in Section 17(1). The relevant provision i.e. Section 17(1), (as amended in U.P.), 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(XX of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (VII of 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877(III of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely:- ……... (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, 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; ………. (f) any other instrument required by any law for the time being in force, to be registered." 10. There is also a corresponding amendment in sub-section (2) of Section 17, inasmuch as, Clause (v), as it stood before Central Act 48 of 2001 was substituted partially vide Section 3 of Central Act 48 of 2001, w.e.f. 24th September, 2001. Sub-section (2)(v) of Section 17 reads as under :- "(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to - ……... (v) any document other than contract for sale not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest 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” 11. An amendment was also made in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by Section 30 of U.P. Act No.57 of 1976, w.e.f 1.1.1977. Section 54, as amended in U.P., reads 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. An amendment was also made in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by Section 30 of U.P. Act No.57 of 1976, w.e.f 1.1.1977. Section 54, as amended in U.P., reads 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 reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. Contract of sale.- A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. Such contract can be made only by a registered instrument." 12. Consistent with the amendments referred to above, Section 49 of Act, 1908 was also simultaneously amended by Section 34 of U.P. Act No.57 of 1976 w.e.f. 1.1.1977 and the amended Section 49, as applicable in U.P. reads as under: "Section 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.- No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) or of any other law for the time being in force, to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power or create any right or relationship, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power or creating such right or relationship, unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of part-performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument." 13. The aforesaid provisions make it clear that an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property lying in State of U.P. required registration necessarily i.e. compulsorily. The aforesaid provisions make it clear that an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property lying in State of U.P. required registration necessarily i.e. compulsorily. Section 17 of Act, 1908 read with Section 54 of Act, 1882, as applicable in U.P., makes it very clear that a contract of sale, as defined in Section 54, can be made only by a registered instrument. By omission of explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 17 of Act, 1908, the legislature has made it very clear that in State of U.P., an agreement to sell immovable property would also require compulsory registration so as to create any right, title or interest in immovable property,. This view finds support from a decision of this Court in Smt. Prabha Awasthi Vs. Nisha Richharia & Anr, 2012 (8) ADJ 557 , wherein a Division Bench referring to Section 17 of Act, 1908, as amended in U.P. w.e.f. 1.4.1977, read with Section 49, has observed as under: "Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 has been amended in the State of U.P. vide U.P. Act No.57 of 1976 w.e.f. 1st of April, 1977 by amending clause (b) of sub section (2) and by omitting the Explanation thereto of section 17 of the Registration Act. It follows that after the commencement of the aforesaid Amending Act, an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property lying in the State of U.P. necessarily requires registration. A document which necessarily requires registration being unregistered one cannot be read in evidence in view of section 49 of the aforesaid Act. It deals with the effect of non registered document required to be registered. Noticeably, section 49 of the Registration Act was also amended by the U.P. Act No.57 of 1976 vide section 34 simultaneously." 14. Though dispute before Division Bench in Prabha Awasthi (supra) related to an agreement executed in 2005 but while having a retrospect of the provisions of Act, 1908, as amended in U.P. in 1977, and the situation as had arisen, the Court has made above observations. Though dispute before Division Bench in Prabha Awasthi (supra) related to an agreement executed in 2005 but while having a retrospect of the provisions of Act, 1908, as amended in U.P. in 1977, and the situation as had arisen, the Court has made above observations. However, since proviso to Section 49 of Act, 1908 permits an unregistered document to be received as evidence of part-performance of a contract for the purpose of Section 53-A of Act, 1882, this Court finds that permitting a document to be received in evidence for limited purpose as such would not have the effect of influencing the rights of the parties vis a vis the immovable property concerned. The general legislative policy under Section 49 of Act, 1908 is contained in three clauses i.e. (a), (b) and (c) and proviso carves out an exception in respect to clause (c) only and not (a) and (b) thereof. The inevitable conclusion qua the immovable property is that, an unregistered document shall not result in affecting the right etc. over the immovable property in any manner and also shall not confer any power to adopt it. To the extent the proviso operates, it permits that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be given in evidence i.e. where a document remains unregistered and title does not pass, the agreement between the parties which preceded the ineffective document shall remain and may be received in evidence to look into the terms thereof. This by itself, would not confer any right since no such right has been conferred under the substantive law. Receiving in evidence does not mean conferment of substantive right. The rule of evidence cannot enlarge or alter the provisions of substantive law. It cannot confer rights, if there are none under the substantive law. 15. The Court finds that even Section 53-A would have no application in the present case. Receiving in evidence does not mean conferment of substantive right. The rule of evidence cannot enlarge or alter the provisions of substantive law. It cannot confer rights, if there are none under the substantive law. 15. The Court finds that even Section 53-A would have no application in the present case. Section 53-A of Act, 1882 reads as under: "Part performance.- Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty : and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof. 16. In order to take shelter behind the above provision, one has to satisfy the following conditions, as are evident from bare reading of Section 53-A: (i) The contract should have been in writing, signed by or on behalf of transferor. (ii) The transferee should have got possession of immovable property covered by contract as a part-performance of the contract. (iii) If the transferee is already in possession and he continues in possession in part-performance of the contract, he further should have done some act in furtherance of the contract. (iv) The transferee has either performed his part of contract or is willing to perform his part of the contract. 17. (iii) If the transferee is already in possession and he continues in possession in part-performance of the contract, he further should have done some act in furtherance of the contract. (iv) The transferee has either performed his part of contract or is willing to perform his part of the contract. 17. It has been held repeatedly that all the postulates of Section 53-A are sine qua none and a party cannot derive benefit by fulfilling only one or more conditions. It must satisfy all the conditions altogether. In taking the above view, I am fortified by Apex Court decisions in FGP Limited Vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor & Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 223 (Paras, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30), Nanjegowda & Anr. Vs. Gangamma & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 232 (paras 9 to 12 and Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi & Anr. Vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (D) by Lrs. & Ors. JT 2002(2) SC 24. 18. As far as the reliance placed by Sri Sharma on the judgment of this Court dated 10.05.2023 passed in Second Appeal No.318 of 2023 (M/s Chaudhary Properties & 2 others vs. Laxmi Devi), the facts of the said case were entirely different. In that case, a colony was developed by the appellants, who were colloniers/ builders and an advertisement was issued for allotment of plots. Pursuant to the advertisement, the plaintiff-respondent had applied for allotment and deposited certain amount of money. Pursuant to deposit of money, when a request to execute the sale deed was made in the light of some letter dated 30.12.2008 issued by the appellants therein, a registered letter was sent by the plaintiff to the builder to execute a registered sale deed and then suit for mandatory injunction was filed. Another relief claimed through amendment was as regards cancellation of letter dated 07.10.2011. The facts of the instant case are entirely different, inasmuch as except an alleged oral understanding between the appellant and the father of the respondent no.2, there is no written contract or even any other document by which it can be inferred that the property was agreed to be sold by the father of the respondent no.2, except certain photostat copies of the bank drafts on which some notings were made. 19. 19. Without expressing any opinion as regards oral and documentary evidence to be led in the original suit or its maintainability, at this stage, while analysing the claim for injunction based upon a plea under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act and in absence of any written or registered or unregistered agreement for sale, this Court is not inclined to accept the appellant’s claim for injunction. 20. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. 21. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.