and thereby also endeavoured to rest his case relying upon Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, in such view of the matter, as rightly found and determined by the first appellate court, considering the import of Section 17 (1) (a) of the Registration Act and Section 53A of the Transfer of the Property Act in toto, it is found that after the abovesaid amendment, unless the agreement put forth by the plaintiff is registered, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek the benefit of the possession based on such an unregistered instrument and therefore, as rightly found and determined by the first appellate court, when the plaintiff is mainly resting upon his case only upon Ex.A1 sale agreement, which does not have legal sanctity, as above discussed, and also determined by the first appellate court rightly and furthermore, in the absence of any case put forth by the plaintiff in the legal notice that he had been handed over the possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale agreement, however, when the plaint proceeds only on the footing that the plaintiff has been put in possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale agreement Ex.A1, in such view of the matter, the first appellate court is justified in not acceding to the case of the plaintiff, particularly when he seeks to rest his case of possession and enjoyment of the suit property based on an unregistered instrument and when as per the abovesaid provision of law, such an unregistered instrument shall not have any effect for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of property Act. In such view of the matter, the first appellate court is right in determining that the plaintiff cannot claim the protection of possession under the unregistered sale agreement and hence no relief can be granted on the basis of the same. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the abovesaid determination of the first appellate court.
