SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1946

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Rajeswari – Appellant
Versus
Shanmugam – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, AOR Ms. Isha Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.Ganesh, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Mr. V.Puneedhan, Adv. Ms. D.Naveena, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

  1. An agreement to sell and a deed assigning a decree for specific performance of an immovable property do not require registration, as the decree itself does not create or transfer any right, title, or interest in the property (!) (!) .

  2. The passing of a decree for specific performance does not extinguish the underlying contract between the parties. The contract subsists and remains enforceable until the execution of a sale deed, which is the point at which rights and interests in the property are transferred (!) (!) (!) .

  3. Registration is mandatory only for non-testamentary instruments that transfer or assign any decree, order, or award of a Court when such instrument purports to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish rights, titles, or interests in immovable property valued at one hundred rupees and above (!) (!) (!) .

  4. Since a decree for specific performance does not itself create or transfer any interest in the immovable property, an assignment of such a decree does not require registration (!) (!) (!) .

  5. The rights arising from a decree for specific performance are not interest in the property itself but are claims for enforcement of the contractual obligation. These rights can be assigned, but the assignment does not automatically transfer ownership or interest in the property until the sale deed is executed and registered (!) (!) (!) .

  6. The legal process for executing a decree involves the actual transfer of ownership through the execution of a registered sale deed, which must be done either by the judgment debtor or through the court if the debtor fails to do so (!) (!) .

  7. The decree for specific performance is an equitable relief that recognizes a claim for enforcement but does not by itself confer any ownership rights in the property. The decree-holder's right to the property is only perfected upon registration of the sale deed (!) (!) (!) .

  8. An assignment deed that transfers rights arising out of a decree for specific performance, without creating or purporting to create any right, title, or interest in the property, does not require registration under the applicable laws (!) (!) .

  9. The process of executing a decree can be carried out by an assignee of the decree, provided the assignment is in writing and complies with procedural requirements, such as giving notice to the original parties (!) (!) (!) .

  10. Overall, the legal framework clarifies that a decree for specific performance does not itself transfer ownership or create interest in the property, and the assignment of such a decree does not necessitate registration unless the assignment itself creates or purports to create a right, interest, or charge in the property (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively establish that the assignment of a decree for specific performance of an immovable property does not require registration, as it does not create or transfer any interest in the property itself.


JUDGMENT :

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Should a deed assigning a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property, be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, is the question that presents itself for consideration in this case.

BRIEF FACTS: -

3. The appellants are the legal heirs of the judgment debtor. Their predecessor suffered an ex-parte decree on 13.09.1993 in O.S. No.100/1989 before the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, Tamil Nadu. The first Respondent herein- Shanmugam claims to be the assignee of the decree dated 13.09.1993. The assignment deed is dated 17.07.1995.

4. The first Respondent-assignee filed E.P. No.150/2004 in O.S. No.100/1989 seeking to recognize the assignment and seeking directions to execute the sale deed and deliver possession.

5. On 13.03.2008, the Executing Court ordered the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first respondent.

6. When the matter stood thus, on 31.10.2009, the appellants herein, who were the legal heirs of the deceased- judgment debtor filed E.A. No.180/2009 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to set aside the execution of the sa

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top