Krishna Murari JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 330/2001, by which the High Court has dismissed the second appeal and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the learned trial Court, the original Defendant has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:
That the Respondent herein - original Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'original Plaintiff') instituted Original Suit No. 696 of 1997 before the learned trial Court for permanent injunction only. The said suit was filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996. The original Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property.
2.1. In the said suit, the Appellant herein - original Defendant filed a counter-claim seeking the decree of possession.
2.2. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the original Plaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the counter-claim of the Defendant on the ground that original Plaintiff could not prove the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 and that the original Plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit property since 08.07.1997. The learned trial Court also held that the original Plaintiff could not prove the agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- and also could not prove that she was put in possession of the suit property on 23.03.1996.
2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the original Plaintiff and allowing the counter-claim of the Defendant, the original Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and consequently decreed the suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant. The learned first appellate Court also dismissed the counter-claim of the Defendant.
2.4. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court has been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order passed in Second Appeal No. 330 of 2001.
2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in dismissing the second appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and dismissing the counter-claim, the original Defendant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant - original Defendant has vehemently submitted that the original Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction solely on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996, which, as such, was unregistered.
3.1. It is submitted that such an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence. It is submitted that therefore both, the learned first ap........