Back
2010 (3) Supreme 162
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
S. Kaladevi — Appellant
versus
V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3192 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1451 of 2009]
Decided on : 12-04-2010
Facts of the Case :
Short question that arose for consideration in present appeal was one of admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in a suit for specific performance of the contract.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that the main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, shows that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document.
When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of 1908 Act. Impugned orders of High Court and that of trial court were set aside. Appeal was allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
An unregistered sale deed can be admitted in evidence, not as proof of a completed sale, but as evidence of an oral agreement of sale, with an endorsement indicating its limited purpose (!) (!) .
The main provision of the relevant registration law states that documents required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect the immovable property they pertain to nor be received as evidence of a transaction affecting such property (!) .
The proviso to this law allows unregistered documents affecting immovable property, which are required to be registered, to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of collateral transactions not requiring registration (!) .
An unregistered sale deed of a certain value can be admitted as evidence of a contract for specific performance or as evidence of collateral transactions not requiring registration, provided it is tendered not as proof of a completed sale but as proof of an oral agreement (!) .
When tendered as evidence of an oral agreement, the unregistered sale deed should be endorsed to clarify its limited evidentiary purpose (!) .
The law emphasizes that the admissibility of such documents depends on their purpose—whether to prove a contract or collateral transaction—and not as proof of a completed transfer (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that such documents can be used to prove the character of possession or other collateral purposes, provided they are independent of the primary transaction requiring registration (!) (!) .
The provisions of the law are supplemented by judicial principles that support the use of unregistered documents for proving agreements or collateral purposes in specific types of suits, such as suits for specific performance (!) (!) .
The law and relevant principles clarify that if a party refuses to register a document, the appropriate remedy is to seek registration or to use the provisions for evidence of an agreement, rather than invalidating the document entirely (!) .
In cases where a document is not registered due to the vendor’s refusal or other circumstances, courts are justified in admitting the document as evidence of the agreement, especially in suits for specific performance, provided it is tendered with the proper endorsement (!) (!) .
The law also clarifies that the operation of other statutes, such as the specific relief or registration laws, does not override the specific provisions allowing evidence of unregistered documents in certain circumstances (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework permits the use of unregistered sale deeds as evidence of oral agreements or collateral transactions in specific legal proceedings, with appropriate endorsements and limitations on their evidentiary weight (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J. —
Leave granted.
2.The short question is one of admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in a suit for specific performance of the contract.
3.The appellant and the respondents are plaintiff and defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit presented in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. The plaintiff in the suit claimed for the reliefs of directing the defendants to execute a fresh sale deed with regard to the suit property in pursuance of an agreement for sale dated 27.02.2006 on or before the date that may be fixed by the court and failing which execution of the sale deed by the court. She also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4.According to the plaintiff, 1st defendant for himself, as the guardian father of 3rd defendant and 2nd defendant jointly entered into an oral agreement with her on 27.02.2006 to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,83,000/-. It was agreed that the sale deed, in pursuance of the oral agreement for sale, would be executed and registered on the same day. The plaintiff purchased the stamp papers; paid the entire sale consideration to the defendants; the defendants put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and also executed a sale deed in her favour. On 27.02.2006 itself, the said sale deed was taken to the Sub- Registrar’s office. The Sub-Registrar, however, informed that in view of an order of attachment of the suit property the sale deed could not be registered. The sale deed, thus, could not be registered. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 then promised the plaintiff that they would amicably settle the matter with the concerned party who had obtained attachment of the suit property and get the sale deed registered no sooner the attachment was raised. The plaintiff averred that she called upon the defendants to get the sale deed registered, but the defendants avoided the same by putting forth the reason that attachment in respect of the suit property was subsisting. On 04.02.2007 however, the plaintiff called upon defendant nos. 1 and 2 to cooperate in getting the sale deed registered, but instead of doing that the defendants attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property necessitating action by way of suit.
5.The 1st defendant filed written statement and traversed plaintiff’s case. He denied having entered into an oral agreement for sale with the plaintiff for himself and as a guardian father of 3rd defendant and the 2nd defendant jointly on 27.02.2006 as alleged. He also denied having delivered physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant set up the defence that he had taken loan from one Subramaniam and when Subramaniam demanded the repayment thereof, he approached plaintiff and requested her to lend Rs. 1,75,000/- as loan. Upon plaintiff’s insistence that 1st defendant should execute an agreement for sale in her favour, he and the 2nd defendant signed the document believing that to be agreement for sale on 27.02.2006 and went to the office of Sub-Registrar for getting the agreement for sale registered. However, when the Sub-Registrar asked the 1st defendant whether the consideration has been received and sale deed could be registered, he and the 2nd defendant learnt that plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the signatures on sale deed by falsely stating that it was only an agreement for sale and hence they went away refusing to agree for the registration of the said document.
6.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were struck. It appears that on 05.12.2007 at the time of examination of PW. 1, the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 was tendered for being marked. The counsel for the defendants objected to the said document being admitted in evidence being an unregistered sale deed. The trial court by its order dated 11.12.2007 sustained the
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
