JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 30.06.2023 (decree signed on 07.07.2023) passed by learned District Judge IV East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby Civil Appeal No.100 of 2020 has been dismissed and the judgement and decree dated 19.08.2013 (decree signed on 26.08.2013) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.115 of 2002 has been upheld. 3. The suit for specific performance of contract was decreed and the learned 1 st appellate court has affirmed the judgement passed bythe learned trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgement has submitted that only one question of law arises in this case, that the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2002 was notcapable of execution as the same is an unregistered document and is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking specific performance of agreement dated 05.03.2002 described in the Schedule to the plaint and seeking a prayer directing the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the said property within time which may be fixed by the court failing which the sale deed may be executed and registered before the District Sub-Registrar at Jamshedpur after accepting the balance consideration amount of Rs.2,15,000/- to be deposited by the plaintiff before the court. The plaintiff also sought a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property to any third party. The plaintiff also claimed for possession of the suit property after execution and registration of the sale deed. 6. This Court finds that the suit was contested and the learned trial court after considering the material on record has decreed the suit. The learned 1 st appellate court has affirmed the judgement of the learned trial court. 7. The plaintiff also claimed for possession of the suit property after execution and registration of the sale deed. 6. This Court finds that the suit was contested and the learned trial court after considering the material on record has decreed the suit. The learned 1 st appellate court has affirmed the judgement of the learned trial court. 7. Considering the only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, no further discussion in connection with the findings of the learned court so far as grant of relief of Specific Performance of Contract, is required, inasmuch as the sole point argued is that the agreement dated 05.03.2002 being an unregistered document was inadmissible in evidence in terms of Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. 8. Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act is quoted as under: “(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A 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 53A.” 9. This Court finds that the aforesaid section is essentially referrable to the plea seeking protection by a person in possession of the property in part performance of an agreement of sale against his eviction under Section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 10. There can be no doubt that the agreement of sale by itself does not amount to transfer of property, and therefore, the same is not compulsorily registrable when it comes to its enforcement seeking specific performance of contract. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the agreement of sale was compulsorily registrable and was not admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of contract, is ex facie not acceptable. 11. This Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is involved on the point, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.