Back
S.RAJENDRA BABU, A.P.MISRA
Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah – Appellant
Versus
Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy – Respondent
Key Points: - The Court held that Section 77 of the Registration Act would apply only if the matter pertains to registration of a document, not to a comprehensive suit seeking relief like permanent injunction or possession (!) (!) . - A suit for specific performance could be maintained even when a sale deed is unregistered, if the plaintiff also seeks registration and other reliefs, and the remedy under Specific Relief Act may coexist with Section 77, depending on the nature of relief sought (!) (!) . - The decision discusses that in certain circumstances, a plaintiff may proceed with a suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement to sell or an unregistered sale deed, without being barred by Section 77, when the relief includes more than mere registration (e.g., injunction, possession) (!) (!) . - It sets out the sequence for Section 77 remedies: document presentation for registration within time, presented by authorized person, Sub-Registrar refusal, appeal within 30 days, Sub-Registrar refusal under Sec 76, and filing suit within 30 days (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The First Appellate Court’s reliance on Sec 49 and the admissibility of the sale deed to prove agreement to sell is discussed to support specific performance on an pleaded oral agreement when a registered document is not available (!) .
Judgment
Rajendra Babu, J.-The respondent filed a suit for specific performance seeking a direction to register the sale deed dated July 2, 1979 (Exhibit A-6) and for injunction or possession of the immovable property referred to therein. His case is that the appellant had duly executed the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit premises for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,200/- but the appellant did not get the document registered thereafter. The case set up by the appellant is that he signed sale deed dated July 2, 1979 as a result of fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent taking advantage of the fact that he was an illiterate person. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had to avail of the remedy under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and not bring a suit for specific performance. The matter was carried in appeal. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on the basis that the relief insofar as the decree for specific performance of the later half of the document could be granted and that Section 77 of the Act will not come in the way. A secon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
