IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Agreement to sell – Deed assigning decree for specific performance of immovable property do not require registration.
(2) With passing of decree of specific performance, contract between parties is not extinguished – Registration is mandatory only for non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award.

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 sale deed dated 13.03.2008 in favour of the first respondent. They also prayed for the dismissal of the Execution Petition primarily on the ground that the assignment deed in favour of the first respondent was not registered and, hence, unenforceable in law. By an order of 08.04.2010, the Executing Court allowed E.A. No.180/2009 and on the aspect of the need for registration of the assignment, the Court recorded the following finding, after relying on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K. Bhaskaram and another vs. Mohammad Moulana (died) and others, AIR 2005 AP 524:-

“18. …… While perusing the above decision, it can be noticed that it is not in dispute that there can be oral transfer of property without writing in every cases in which writing is not exclusively required under law. But if it is an immovable property, the value of which is more than Rs.100/- such transfer deed will have to be reduced in writing and also it requires compulsory registration. After analyzing section 17 of the Indian Registration Act … the Hon’ble High Court categorically held that u/s.17(1)(e) and (f) of the Registration Act the assignment and transfer of the decree relating to immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards is compulsorily registrable. Further it was held that the transfer of the right in a decree by way of assignment in immovable properties require stamp and registration and if there is a valid assignment of decree by operation of law, then the assignee is entitled to get the decree executed in his favour after issuing a notice to the transferors and the Judgment-Debtors. Further it was held that the non-compliance with provisio regarding notice under Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C. renders all subsequent proceedings void. The above decision was also rendered in a case of specific performance relating to immovable property. Therefore, this court finds that the principles and the decision reported above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. No other decision or the principle laid down in any other case has been pointed out and produced by the respondents so as to reject or over- look the contentions raised by the petitioners herein or the decision reported in ‘A.I.R. 2005- Andhra Pradesh- Page 524’. Therefore, this court has no other go except to accept the principles laid down in the above decision.

19. Since this court comes to the conclusion that the assignment deed executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent has not been recognised prior to the execution of the sale deed and that the assignment deed Ex. Bl is bad for want of registration as per Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, this court finds that the execution proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent cannot be proceeded further.”

7.