Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 1048
High Court of Karnataka
ANAND BYRAREDDY
Ashwatthamma
Versus
Smt. Ramakka & Another
Regular Second Appeal No.186 of 2008
Decided on : 29-11-2010
For the Petitioner:S. Sreevatsa, Senior Advocate, B.C. Rajeeva, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Balakrishna Shastry, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of an unregistered sale deed as an agreement of sale and its admissibility as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Transaction - Registration Act - [Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah vs. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy, AIR 1999 SC 2958] - The court addressed the enforceability of an unregistered sale deed as an agreement of sale and the admissibility of unregistered documents as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The court held that an unregistered sale deed could be enforced as an agreement of sale and admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The rejection of an expert's report and the refusal to appoint another commissioner for a local investigation resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The suit was remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration along with a pending appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed to have paid the entire sale consideration for a property and sought specific performance of the sale deed. The defendants denied the sale transaction and contended that the first defendant had no title to the property due to acquisition by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the sale deed was not proved, and the suit was barred by limitation. The lower appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. The appellate court framed substantial questions of law and remanded the case to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration.
Issues: The primary issue was the proof of the sale transaction and the enforceability of the sale deed. The court also considered the admissibility of unregistered documents as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an unregistered sale deed could be enforced as an agreement of sale and admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The rejection of an expert's report and the refusal to appoint another commissioner for a local investigation resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside. The case was remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration along with a pending appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court. It was the plaintiff’s case that the suit property originally belonged to defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 is the husband of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 had agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Plaintiff and had received the entire sale consideration as on 30.7.1980 and the sale deed was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.500/-. There was an attesting witness in respect of the sale transaction. It is contended that since the villagers of Garagadoddi were agitating against acquisition of some portion of the suit property and their petitions in this regard were pending before the competent authorities, they were opposed to registration of the sale transaction. The land was also the subject matter of acquisition proceedings and therefore, the sale deed could not be registered. However, the Plaintiff had been put in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she was cultivating the same. In this regard, the Plaintiff drew attention to a writ petition which was filed through the defendant’s mother before this court in its writ jurisdiction and the same having been allowed and acquisition proceedings having been quashed, the Plaintiff claimed that he has performed his part of the contract in having paid the entire sale consideration and she was ready and willing to have the document of sale executed in her favour. The first defendant inspite of oral demands had failed to execute and register the sale deed However, the sale deed was sought to be treated as an agreement of sale and a legal notice was issued calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant having replied denying the execution of the sale deed, a suit was filed.
The suit was resisted by the defendants who denied the sale transaction and the plaint averments. It was incidentally contended that the first defendant had no title to the suit property inasmuch as a portion of the suit property had vested in the Government and alienation of such land being prohibited, the sale in favour of the first defendant by Nagamma was only nominal and therefore, she was not the owner of the property as on the date of the alleged sale transaction in favour of the Plaintiff.
Incidentally, the respondents had in turn filed yet another suit in O.S.No.107/1989, for declaration and injunction whereby the defendant herein, who was the plaintiff there, claimed the relief of declaration that she was the owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant - Plaintiff from interfering with her possession. The trial court had clubbed the said suit along with the suit filed by the Plaintiff herein and following issues were framed:-
Issues in O.S.58/1989
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that defendants received Rs.5000/- on 30.07.1980 and agreed to sell the suit schedule property to her?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she was put in possession of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the suit is not in time?
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable?
5. Whether the 1st defendant has no title to the suit property?
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
7. What Order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff get unfair advantage over the defendant if specific performance is granted?
2. Whether the document dated 30.07.1980 is not enforceable in view of the provisions of the Registration Act?
Issues in O.S.No.107/1989
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit land?
2. Whether the defendant prays that in pursuance to a contract of sale they have been put in possession of the suit property?
3. Is the suit not maintainable?
4. Whether the description of the plaint schedule property is true and correct?
5. Is the alleged interference true?
6. To what reliefs are the Plaintiffs entitled?
7. What order?
On a detailed consideration of
