JUDGMENT : C. Pratheep Kumar, J. The plaintiff in OS 60/2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Palakkad, is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.) 2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 14.10.2003 executed by him along with defendants 1 to 5. According to the plaintiff, as per Ext.A1, the defendants agreed to sell an extent of 10 cents of property covered by settlement deed 1802/1992 of SRO Alathur (Ext.A2), for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- per cent. On the date of agreement itself, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid as advance and the possession of the scheduled property was handed over to the plaintiff. The period originally fixed for specific performance was upto 14.2.2004 and subsequently, it was extended till 28.2.2004, as per endorsement dated 30.1.2004. According to the plaintiff, though he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, it could not be performed due to the default of the defendants. On 24.2.2004 a lawyers notice was issued to the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. As mentioned in the said notice, he was present in the Alathur Sub Registrar's office on 27.2.2004 with sufficient funds, but the defendants did not turn up. After receiving the notice, the 1 st defendant approached the plaintiff and requested for four days time stating that he had some urgent work in Bangalore. Since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed as promised, he preferred this suit. 3. During the pendency of the suit the 1 st defendant died and additional defendants 6 to 9 were impleaded as his legal representatives. Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte. Defendants 4 and 5 filed written statement denying the execution of Ext.A1 agreement and contending that there was only a loan transaction with the plaintiff. According to them, the 1 st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and at that time, as demanded by the plaintiff, he was forced to execute Ext.A1 agreement as a security. They also contended that at the time of the agreement, the scheduled property was subject to a mortgage with the bank. It is also contended that the actual value of the property was much more. They also contended that at the time of the agreement, the scheduled property was subject to a mortgage with the bank. It is also contended that the actual value of the property was much more. Additional defendants 6 to 9 would contend that they are not aware Ext.A1 agreement. Therefore, they prayed for dismissing the suit. 4. The trial court framed five issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs1 to 3, DWs1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A4. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that since Ext.A1 was not registered, it cannot be received in evidence, in the light of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act . Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred this appeal raising various grounds. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :- i. Whether the non-registration of Ext.A1 agreement dis-entitles the plaintiff from getting a decree for specific performance? ii. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court calls for any interference, in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal ? 6. Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior counsel as instructed by Sri.P.B.Subramanyam, for the appellant. At the time of the argument, Sri.John Joseph, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent submitted that there is no instruction from the party. There was no representation for other respondents also. 7. The points :- The fact that Ext.A1 sale agreement was executed by defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff on 14.10.2003 was not disputed. In the written statement the contention taken by the defendants is that Ext.A1 was executed as security for the repayment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- borrowed by the 1 st defendant. The trial court has not gone into the merits of the case, but dismissed the same on technical grounds. One of the reasons stated by the trial court for rejecting Ext.A1 is that there is no clear recitals in it as to the extent of the property, its lie and nature. The other reason stated is that Ext.A1 was not registered and hence not admissible in evidence. 8. One of the reasons stated by the trial court for rejecting Ext.A1 is that there is no clear recitals in it as to the extent of the property, its lie and nature. The other reason stated is that Ext.A1 was not registered and hence not admissible in evidence. 8. On a perusal of Ext.A1 it can be seen that the property agreed to be sold was 10 cents from the property covered by Ext.A2 gift deed, the title deed of the 1 st defendant. As per Ext.A2 settlement deed, the 1 st defendant obtained title over 19.5 cents of property from his brother and the property covered by Ext.A1 is 10 cents out of the above 19.5 cents. It is true that in the description of property in the schedule attached to Ext.A1, the exact lie of the above 10 cents is not specified. However, the eastern boundary of the above 10 cents is shown as the remaining property of the defendants. Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the 10 cents covered by Ext.A1 is from the western side of 19.5 cents. In other words, as argued by the learned counsel, when the contents of Ext.A1 is taken together, the property mentioned therein can be ascertained. 9. The reason stated by the trial court for not receiving Ext.A1 in evidence is that, since it was not registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act , in the light of Section 49 it cannot be received in evidence. The learned senior counsel relying upon Sections 17 (1)(f), 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act would argue that the above finding of the trial court is against the settled position of law. For easy reference, Sections 17 (1)(f), 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act are extracted below: “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 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) ............. (b)....... (c)....................... (d)...................... (e) ....................... (f). (b)....... (c)....................... (d)...................... (e) ....................... (f). Instruments purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.” “17(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, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 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 53-A.] 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) [Added by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.] 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 Transfer 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] [Added by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.], [* * *] [The words "or 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” omitted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 6 (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.] 10. Amended Section 17 (1)(f) of the Registration Act which provides for registration of a sale agreement, came into effect only on 13.9.2013, while Ext.A1 agreement was executed on 14.10.2003, much before the said amendment. Section 17 (1A) of Central Amendment relating to a claim under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act , came into effect on 24.9.2001. In the instant case, the plaintiff is not claiming any right under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and seeking only specific performance of Ext.A1. Section 17 (1A) of Central Amendment relating to a claim under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act , came into effect on 24.9.2001. In the instant case, the plaintiff is not claiming any right under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and seeking only specific performance of Ext.A1. Since amended Section 17 (1)(f) of the Registration Act came into force only on 13.9.2013, non-registration of Ext.A1 dated 14.10.2003 is not fatal. Moreover, as per the proviso to Section 49 , unregistered documents required to be registered, can be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. In the above circumstance, the prohibition under Section 49 (c) does not apply to Ext.A1, in the facts of this case. 11. In the decision in K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited , (2008) 8 SCC 564 relied upon by the learned senior counsel, the Apex Court held that, even if a document which is required to be registered, if unregistered, though not admissible as evidence under Section 49 , can be used as evidence for collateral transaction/purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 . 12. In the decision in Hemalatha R. v. Kashthuri , (2023) 10 SCC 725 , the question that arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether an unregistered agreement for sale was admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act . After analysing various provisions of the Registration Act and the amendments made thereto, the Apex Court in paragraph 13 held that : “13. 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 (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 (1A) 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 .” 13. In the light of the above discussions, it is to be held that even though Ext.A1 agreement was not registered, it can be received as evidence in this case, as it is a suit for specific performance. Therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting Ext.A1 under Section 49 of the Registration Act on the ground that it was not registered. 14. The plaintiff as PW1 deposed that on 14.10.2003 he had entered into an agreement with the 1 st defendant agreeing to purchase the plaint schedule property for a price of Rs.45,000/- per cent and on the same day a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid as advance. Further, according to him, on the same day, possession of the scheduled property was handed over to him. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and hence Ext.A3 lawyer notice dated 24.2.2004 was issued. Ext.A3(a) is the postal receipt and Ext.A3(b) is the acknowledgment due card in respect of the said notice. In the said notice he had called upon the defendants to appear before the scribe on 27.2.2004 and to execute the sale deed. However, the defendants did not turn up. According to the plaintiffs, after four days, the 1 st defendant informed him that he had some inconvenience as he had to go to Bangalore and handed over his original title deed (Ext.A2) and expressed his readiness to perform the contract. Since even after handing over Ext.A2 the defendants failed to perform the contract, he filed the suit on 18.3.2004. He also would swear that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the contract could not be performed only due to the default of the defendants. 15. Since even after handing over Ext.A2 the defendants failed to perform the contract, he filed the suit on 18.3.2004. He also would swear that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the contract could not be performed only due to the default of the defendants. 15. PW2, the scribe who prepared Ext.A1 and PW3 an attestor to Ext.A1 also categorically deposed that Ext.A1 is a sale agreement executed by the defendants after receiving an advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is to be noted that the plaint schedule property exclusively belonged to the 1 st defendant and in Ext.A1, his children namely defendants 2 to 5 were included only as formal parties. The 1 st defendant died on 15.3.2006 during the pendency of the suit and he has not filed any written statement. In the written statement filed by defendants 6 to 8 they pleaded ignorance about Ext.A1 and claimed that they have not obtained any property from the 1 st defendant. At the time of evidence, DW2 deposed that he does not even know the plaint schedule property. 16. The fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property since the execution of Ext.A1 was admitted by DW1 also. He also admitted that it is the plaintiff who is taking yield from the plaint schedule property. He also admitted that as access to the northern road, the plaintiff has put up some steps on the northern side of the plaint schedule property. Though in the written statement the defendants 4 and 5 contended that the scheduled property was mortgaged to a bank, no evidence was produced by them in that respect. The plaintiff produced the original title deed of the 1 st defendant and got it marked as Ext.A2. In the absence of any other evidence from the side of the defendants and the original title deed is in the possession of the plaintiff, it is to be presumed that, there was no such mortgage over the plaint schedule property as alleged by the defendants. Defendants 4 and 5 have taken another contention that an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property to another person was entered into by the 1 st defendant. However, no such agreement was also produced in this case to prove the bona fides of the above contention. 17. Defendants 4 and 5 have taken another contention that an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property to another person was entered into by the 1 st defendant. However, no such agreement was also produced in this case to prove the bona fides of the above contention. 17. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Ext.A4 letter issued by the Sub Treasury Officer, Alathur, to show that in pursuance to Ext.A3 notice, the plaintiff purchased stamp papers, prepared the sale deed and since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the stamp papers were surrendered and refund was received on 20.9.2004. PWs2 and 3 also deposed that the plaintiff prepared the original sale deed in stamp paper for the purpose of executing the sale deed. 18. At the time of evidence it is revealed that the plaintiff is a beedi maker. As argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as on 14.10.2003 is a huge amount. It means that Rs.2,50,000/- paid as advance is more than 55% of the total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. At the time of evidence, it is also revealed that the plaintiff has remitted the balance sale consideration before the trial court. Immediately on execution of Ext.A1 possession of the scheduled property was also handed over to the plaintiff. In the above circumstances, if specific performance is not allowed, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable injury, hardship and inconvenience and the same will result in injustice to the plaintiff. 19. During the cross-examination of the plaintiff as PW1, an attempt was made to show that the actual price of the scheduled property was much more at the time of executing Ext.A1. However, there is no independent or reliable evidence to prove that the actual price of the schedule property was more than what is mentioned in Ext.A1. At the time of examination of the plaintiff as PW1, he admitted that at the time of his examination on 17.10.2010, the property will fetch Rs.70,000/- per cent. However, it is to be noted that the agreement was executed on 14.10.2003 and on the same day more than 55% of the sale consideration was paid. Therefore, the subsequent increase in the value of the property is not a sufficient ground to deny specific performance in the facts of this case. However, it is to be noted that the agreement was executed on 14.10.2003 and on the same day more than 55% of the sale consideration was paid. Therefore, the subsequent increase in the value of the property is not a sufficient ground to deny specific performance in the facts of this case. Even if the specific performance is allowed, there is no scope for any unfair advantage to the plaintiff in the facts of this case. 20. Moreover, it is revealed that all along the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he had issued Ext.A3 notice to the defendants within the extended period of the agreement and also filed the suit without delay. He also purchased stamp paper and prepared the original sale deed for the purpose of executing the sale deed, after giving notice to the defendants. In the above circumstances, I do not find any grounds to exercise the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963, against the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for specific performance as prayed for in the suit. Points answered accordingly. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit is set aside. The suit is decreed and a decree of specific performance is granted as per the following terms : i) The plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration, if any, before the trial court within a period of one month from today. ii) The defendants are directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or anybody authorised by him, within a period of two months from the date of deposit of the balance sale consideration, if any. iii) In case of default, the plaintiff could get the sale deed executed through the process of the court. iv) Considering the facts I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs in the appeal. All pending interlocutory applications in the appeal will stand dismissed.