[Provided that an unregistered document on fixed property required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) may be obtained as evidence of a contract for a specified performance under Chapter II, if the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of a guarantee transaction, which must not be carried out by a registered instrument”. A sale immediately indicates the transfer of ownership. It is obtained by a deed of sale, while a contract of sale indicates a future transfer. The risks associated with the sale are immediately transferred, while in the event of a purchase agreement, they remain in the hands of the seller. A sale is an executed contract, while the contract of sale is a contract of testamentary performance. These documents should be accompanied by all other documents necessary for the sales contract. This shows the willingness of both parties to sell and buy a property in question and to conclude in the elaboration of the deed of sale itself. It cannot therefore be qualified as an instrument of sale, as it does not create any rights to the property for the buyer. The reservation provided for in article 49 provides for a derogation from the above-mentioned rule and provides that an unregistered document which relates to immovable property and which otherwise must be registered either under the registration law or under the TPA may be obtained as evidence of a contract in a legal action for a given performance or as proof of a security transaction. In KB Saha & Sons (P) Ltd v. Development Consultant Ltd [(2008) 8 SCC 564], the Supreme Court held that a mandatory registration document, if not registered, could only be considered in an appeal for certain services as proof that a contract was concluded between two parties and that this unregistered document could not be read as proof of the content of the contract.
Therefore, if a document is inadmissible in the absence of registration as evidence, none of its provisions can be admitted as evidence. The Hon`ble Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and expressed a respectful rejection of the Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh judgment, where there is a conflict over the legal situation, whether it is possible to order legal action for a given performance on the basis of an unregistered sales agreement under section 17(1A) and section 49 of the Registration Act. The conflicts between two single Bench judgments were settled by the court. In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon`ble court ruled that the sales agreement acquired through the delivery of goods is inadmissible as evidence if it is not registered, but in the birham Pal & Ors case. . . .