JUDGMENT Anil Kshetarpal, J. In this regular second appeal, the defendant assails the correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn, has reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court. 2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed. 3. Sh. Phulla Singh was owner of the suit property. He executed a registered sale deed on 09.03.1976 in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) with respect to land measuring 19 kanals 02 marlas. Subsequently, the same Sh. Phulla Singh executed a registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Lachhman Kaur (defendant) vide sale deed dated 10.05.1977. The plaintiff is defendant's real maternal uncle's son. On 24.06.1977, the plaintiff (respondent herein) received Rs. 11,000/- from the defendant and executed affidavit dated 24.06.1977, acknowledging the plaintiff to be the real owner of the property while cancelling the sale deed. On 27.07.1985, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession claiming that he had to leave the village for personal and domestic reasons and has remained out of village for a long time but he returned and found the defendant to be in possession of the property, which was contested by the defendant. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff has never lived in village Attalan, where the property is situated and in fact he is permanent resident of village Basini, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. He is her maternal uncle's son. At one point of time, he wanted to settle in Attalan and purchased the land but never settled. The defendant has been in cultivating possession of the suit land at the time when Sh. Phulla Singh was cultivating the land for more than 12 years prior to 10.05.1977 and the plaintiff has already relinquished his rights by executing the sale deed. Hence, he is estopped from filing the suit. 4. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, however, the First Appellate Court accepted the appeal while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The First Appellate Court has found that all three documents namely the sale deed dated 09.03.1976, executed by Sh. Phulla Singh in favour of the plaintiff is proved. It was also held that execution of the sale deed by Sh. Phulla Singh on 10.05.1977, in favour of defendant is also proved. The First Appellate Court has found that all three documents namely the sale deed dated 09.03.1976, executed by Sh. Phulla Singh in favour of the plaintiff is proved. It was also held that execution of the sale deed by Sh. Phulla Singh on 10.05.1977, in favour of defendant is also proved. It has also been held that the affidavit dated 24.06.1977, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant upon receipt of Rs. 11,000/- has been proved. The correctness of such finding of fact has not been challenged before this Court. 5. Learned counsel representing the appellant has submitted that the First Appellate Court has overlooked Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the plaintiff's suit for possession is not maintainable because the possession of the defendant is protected as she has already returned the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff. While elaborating, he submits that affidavit dated 26.06.1977 can be treated as an agreement to sell which acknowledges her continuous possession. While referring to the assertions made in the plaint as well as the deposition of plaintiff, he submits that conduct of the plaintiff also supports his arguments. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent submits that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 relinquishment of the right in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- is mandatorily required to be registered. He submits that in absence thereof the title will not pass to the defendant, hence his suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has considered the oral submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties and also perused the written notes of submissions filed the learned counsel representing the appellant alongwith the requisitioned record. 8. The relevant extract of the written submissions filed by the learned counsel representing the appellant is extracted as under:- "Whereas Ld. ADJ reversed the same and wrongly observed that Affidavit Ex. DA (Ex- D-1) is not a valid and legal document without giving any findings, ignoring the evidence led by Lachhman Kaur to prove this affidavit by examining DW-4 Sh. Vasdev Singla, Stamp Vendor, DW- 5, Sh. M.R. Vohra, Advocate, Scribe, Oath Commissioner, and marginal witnesses and when this affidavit was proved. The observation of the Id. DA (Ex- D-1) is not a valid and legal document without giving any findings, ignoring the evidence led by Lachhman Kaur to prove this affidavit by examining DW-4 Sh. Vasdev Singla, Stamp Vendor, DW- 5, Sh. M.R. Vohra, Advocate, Scribe, Oath Commissioner, and marginal witnesses and when this affidavit was proved. The observation of the Id. ADJ that under Section 49 of the Registration Act, this affidavit is relevant only for collateral purposes to prove the payment of Rs. 11,000/-, is wrong. By this affidavit it is proved that the possession of the said Lachhman Kaur (who was already found in possession as Tenant) on the suit land was for consideration, valid, legal and it cannot be said that it was unauthorised, unjust or illegal unless it is said that the possession was illegal, no decree for possession can be passed against Lachhman Kaur or against her legal heirs. Furthermore, Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act- 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,3 Thus, most genuine plea supported by evidence that the respondent took money way back on 24.6.1977 and recognized Lachhman Kaur as owner in possession of the suit land in the presence of the respectables of village and relatives. 8 years after i.e. on 23.07.1985, he had no moral right to say by filing the plaint of this case for possession by totally concealing the fact of Affidavit Ex. DA, the plaintiff-respondent took a stand that this is not legal and valid document. This is not open to the respondent to say so. It has been proved that the affidavit was executed by the respondent for consideration and the respondent has been estopped by his act and conduct of resiling. When in the written statement this fact was told, the respondent-plaintiff filed replication. This is not open to the respondent to say so. It has been proved that the affidavit was executed by the respondent for consideration and the respondent has been estopped by his act and conduct of resiling. When in the written statement this fact was told, the respondent-plaintiff filed replication. In that he said in paragraph 4, relevant portion thus extracted is reproduced hereunder- "It is also wrong that the plaintiff had executed any affidavit recognizing the possession and ownership of the defendant as alleged." In view of the evidence / Affidavit Ex.DA dated 24.07.1977 executed, where the respondent/plaintiff is proved to have relinquished everything in favour of the defendant Lachhman Kaur about the land in question, which has been specifically mentioned with Khasra nos. in the said Affidavit which has been legally proved and an amount of INR.11,000/- is proved to have received, thus, the plaintiff/respondent is estopped his act and conduct. This is not open to the respondent to say so as the affidavit was executed by the respondent for consideration had been duly proved. Therefore, by the above said Affidavit, it is proved that the possession of said Lachmman Kaur on the suit land was for consideration, valid, legal and cannot be said that it was unauthorized, unjust or illegal, no decree for possession can be passed against Lachmman Kaur or against her legal heirs/ appellants" 9. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the First Appellate Court that affidavit Ex.D/A dated 24.06.1977, does not amount to plaintiff having relinquished his title. Such document was required to be mandatorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 for the purposes of transfer of immovable property valuing more than Rs. 100/-. However, the First Appellate Court has overlooked that such affidavit can be treated as agreement to sell with delivery of possession. As per the finding of the First Appellate Court, the affidavit Ex.D/A has been proved to have been executed by the plaintiff after having received Rs. 11,000/-, the amount equivalent to twice of the value of the land. In fact, the First Appellate Court has passed a conditional decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession subject to payment of Rs. 11,000/- to the defendant. This affidavit has been proved by Smt. Lachhman Kaur (defendant) who appeared as DW/1 as well as by examining the Stamp Vendor Sh. Vasdev Singla and Sh. In fact, the First Appellate Court has passed a conditional decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession subject to payment of Rs. 11,000/- to the defendant. This affidavit has been proved by Smt. Lachhman Kaur (defendant) who appeared as DW/1 as well as by examining the Stamp Vendor Sh. Vasdev Singla and Sh. M.R. Vohra, Advocate. Section 53-A of the Act, protects the possession of the proposed purchaser. The ingredients of Section 53-A of the Act stands fulfilled because the total payment has been made and continuation of the defendant's possession over the suit property is acknowledged. Section 53-A of the Act has already been extracted in the written note of submissions. Moreover, the plaintiff's conduct itself proves the defendants case. While filing the suit, he has admitted that he remained out of village for quite some time. Moreover, as per the finding of the trial Court, which has not been reversed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff-Sh. Inder Singh admitted that he did not take steps to get the mutation of the sale deed entered in his favour. He also did not file appeal, once the mutation of the land was sanctioned in favour of the defendant. He admitted that he is residing in Uttar Pradash. This deposition of the plaintiff coupled with the affidavit Ex. D/A dated 24.06.1977, proves that the plaintiff in fact relinquished his share. Though, technically a relinquishment or a registered sale deed should have been executed in favour of the defendant, however, Section 53-A of the Act, which is based upon the rule of estoppel comes to the appellant's rescue. The argument of the learned counsel representing the appellant that reliance placed by the First Appellate Court upon Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 has no substance because the affidavit does not result in relinquishment of ownership in the immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/-. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. It is declared that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property. 11. The appeal stands allowed.