1. Unregistered agreement reciting pre-existent title and promising future sale deeds held not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of Registration Act. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1753
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Mool Chand and Others - Appellants
Versus
Nanagram and another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6596 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (c) No. 11905 of 2002)
Decided On : 27-10-2005
An unregistered document that merely recites a pre-existent title and promises to execute future sale deeds does not create or extinguish title and is therefore not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1) - Admissibility of unregistered document - Document recording pre-existent title and containing a promise to execute sale deeds in the future - Whether such document is compulsorily registrable - Document that does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any title, whether in present or future, does not fall within clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 - Such document is merely a recital of pre-existent title and a promise to execute future deeds and is therefore not compulsorily registrable. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
A document styled as an "agreement," executed on stamp paper but not registered, was sought to be tendered in evidence. The document recited that a property had been purchased jointly by four brothers, although the sale deed had been executed only in the name of one. It further recorded that the executant would execute sale deeds in favor of the other brothers, as the consideration had already been received in equal shares at the time of purchase. The trial court and the High Court had held the document inadmissible for want of registration.
Findings of Court:
The document does not create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any title and does not fall within the categories of documents listed in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. It merely contains a recital as to a pre-existent title and a promise to execute sale deeds in the future.
Issues: Whether an unregistered agreement that recites pre-existent joint ownership and promises the future execution of sale deeds is compulsorily registrable and thus inadmissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: A document is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, if it does not create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any title, but instead merely records a pre-existent title and promises to execute future documents to formally confer that title.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Objection that the agreement was compulsorily registrable and inadmissible for want of registration. (Para 2 )
3. Document does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any title; it merely recites pre-existent title and promises future sale deeds. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. A document reciting pre-existent title and promising future conveyance does not create or extinguish title and is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of Registration Act. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; trial court and High Court orders set aside; case remitted to admit document and decide suit on merits. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Under what circumstances is a document not considered to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any title?
When the document merely contains a recital of pre-existent title and a promise to execute sale deeds in the future, without effecting any change in title. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Is an unregistered agreement that records pre-existing title and an undertaking to execute future sale deeds admissible in evidence?
Yes, because such a document is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, and does not require registration for admissibility. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
8. What is the test for determining whether a document is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act?
The test is whether the document creates, declares, assigns, limits or extinguishes any right, title or interest in immovable property, whether in present or future. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
R.C. Lahoti, CJI.
Leave granted.
2. In a civil suit, a document dated 7-12-1991 styled as "agreement" was sought to be tendered in evidence. It is executed on stamp paper but is not registered. The admissibility of the document was objected to by the opposite party submitting that the document was compulsorily registrable and as it was not registered it was inadmissible in evidence. The objection prevailed with the trial court which refused to admit the document in evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a civil revision in the High Court which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order dated 7-10-1999 passed by the trial court holding the agreement dated 7-12-1991 inadmissible in evidence for want of registration cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.
4. A perusal of the document reveals that Nanagram, the executant, is one of the four brothers. He purchased the property about 23-24 years prior to 7-12-1991. The document recites that the land was purchased by the four brothers jointly, though the sale deed was executed only in the name of the executant. The document further goes on to record that in order to confer title on all the brothers the executant would execute sale deeds in favour of the brothers the consideration having been received already in equal shares from the brothers when the property was purchased years before.
5. Such a document does not fall within the category of any of the documents listed in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. No title is created, declared, assigned, limited or extinguished, whether in the present or in future, by the said document dated 7-12-1991. The document merely contains a recital as to a pre-existent title and also a promise to execute sale deeds in future so as to confer title by such sale deeds which are yet to be executed consistently with the share of the brothers in the property. The trial court clearly erred in holding the document to be compulsorily registrable. The refusal of the trial court to admit the document in evidence has occasioned a failure of justice insofar as the appellants are concerned.
6. The appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court dated 18-2-2002 as also of the trial court dated 7-10-1999 are set aside. The case is sent back to the trial court which shall admit the document in evidence and proceed to hear and decide the suit in accordance with law.
7. No order as to costs.
.
