Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
Annappa Maruti Zalke – Petitioner
Versus
Ramu Balappa Bogarnal – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8341 Of 2016
Decided On : 13-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Specific performance of an unregistered Agreement for Sale - The District Judge set aside the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court, ruling that possession based on an unregistered Agreement cannot be lawful. The petitioner contended that the District Judge misapplied the law regarding registration requirements and the nature of possession. The court emphasized that an unregistered Agreement for Sale can be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance. (Paras 1, 3, 19, 27)
(B) Appeal - Scope of appellate review - The appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's discretion unless it is shown to be arbitrary or perverse. The District Judge's interference was deemed unjustified as the trial court had sufficient material to support its findings. (Paras 8, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 11th May 2002, asserting possession based on an unregistered Mortgage Deed. The District Judge overturned the trial court's injunction, citing the unregistered status of the Agreement as a flaw.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Judge erred in disregarding the unregistered documents and the evidence of possession presented by the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of possession based on an unregistered Agreement for Sale and the appropriateness of the District Judge's interference with the trial court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an unregistered Agreement for Sale can be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance, and the appellate court should respect the trial court's discretion unless there is clear evidence of error.
Result: Petition allowed; the District Judge's order quashed and the trial court's injunction restored.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
An unregistered Agreement for Sale can be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance, and appellate courts should respect the discretion exercised by the trial court unless it is shown to be arbitrary or capricious (!) (!) .
The scope of appellate review is limited; courts generally should not interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or perversity (!) (!) .
The non-registration of a document such as an Agreement for Sale or a Mortgage Deed does not automatically render the possession based on such documents unlawful. These unregistered documents can be used as collateral evidence, especially to establish the nature of possession or collateral transactions (!) (!) .
An Agreement for Sale does not require registration to be valid or to be used as evidence in a suit for specific performance. Registration is not mandatory for such agreements, and unregistered agreements can still be relevant and admissible for proving the contract or collateral purposes (!) (!) (!) .
The law permits unregistered documents affecting immovable property to be used as evidence of a contract in specific circumstances, particularly in suits for specific performance or collateral transactions not requiring registration (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the mere non-registration of a document does not preclude the plaintiff from establishing possession or a contractual relationship, especially when supported by objective evidence such as cultivation receipts or other material (!) .
The appellate court should not disturb the trial court's findings or discretionary orders unless there is a clear violation of jurisdiction or incorrect application of legal principles. In this case, the appellate court found that the trial court's order was justified and that the lower appellate order was improper (!) (!) (!) .
The order of the appellate court setting aside the trial court's injunction was quashed, and the original order granting the injunction was restored, reaffirming the principle that unregistered documents can serve as evidence in specific circumstances (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reaffirm that registration is a requirement for certain transactions affecting property rights but does not bar the use of unregistered documents for proving contracts or collateral transactions in appropriate legal proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 24th June 2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Gadhinglaj, in MCA No. 19 of 2016, whereby the Appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant came to be allowed setting aside the order on the Application for temporary injunction (Exhibit “5”) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadhinglaj, restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the possession of, and cultivation by, the plaintiff of the suit land till the final disposal of the suit.
2. Briefly stated the background facts are as under:
2.1 The petitioner instituted a suit being RCS No. 96 of 2015 for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 11th May 2002 and to restrain the defendant from causing obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff asserts that Balu Rama Bogarnal, the father of the defendant was the original holder of the suit land. It was of restricted tenure. Balu Bogarnal had initially mortgaged the said land under a Deed of Mortgage dated 27th June 2000 and accepted mortgage money of Rs.17,000/-. Under the said deed the plaintiff was put in possession of the mortgaged property. Before the five year term of the mortgage expired, Balu Bogarnal executed an Agreement, dated 11th May 2002, to sale the said land for a consideration of Rs.55,000/-. The defendant had executed the said Agreement as a consenting party as Balu Bogarnal claimed that he had effected the partition and the suit property was allotted to the share of the defendant. The possession of the plaintiff as a mortgagee was continued as a transferee under the said Agreement. Balu Bogarnal passed away. The defendant refused to obtain permission of the competent authority to sale the said land and execute a registered instrument to convey title to the plaintiff and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
2.2 In the said Suit, the plaintiff field an Application for temporary injunction. By an order dated 28th October 2015, the learned Civil Judge, Gadhinglaj, restrained the defendant from causing obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff opining, inter alia, prima facie the plaintiff was in possession of the Suit property, the defendant had admitted the execution of the Mortgage Deed and the Agreement for Sale, and, therefore, the possession of the plaintiff was required to be protected.
2.3 In the Appeal, preferred by the defendant, the learned District Judge interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court, principally for the reason that the Agreement for Sale was not registered and, therefore, the claim of possession based on such unregistered Agreement for Sale, cannot be sustained as a lawful possession. Since the said possession was not referable to a valid title, according to the learned District Judge, the Trial Court was in error in granting temporary injunction. To draw support to the aforesaid view the learned District Judge heavily banked upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp And Industries Private Limited Through Director Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,
3. Mr. Redekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the learned District Judge was not at all justified in interfering with a reasoned discretionary order passed by the Trial Court, in exercise of limited appellate jurisdiction. The learned District Judge completely misconstrued the scope of the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act 1908 (“the Registration Act”). An Agreement for Sale is not required to be compulsorily registered. The decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (Supra) was in respect of unregistered documents whereunder the title was conveyed. In the case at hand, the plaintiff was seeking specific performance of the Agreement for Sale. Thus
An unregistered Agreement for Sale can be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance, and appellate courts should respect trial court discretion unless shown to be arbitrary.
An unregistered agreement to sell cannot serve as a basis for injunctive relief against a true owner of property, reflecting the necessity of registration under relevant laws.
An oral agreement for the sale of immovable property is unenforceable without a written and registered agreement under the Registration Act and Specific Relief Act.
(1) Registration of document is not sine qua non for receiving the same as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.(2) Plaintiff can very well make alternative prayer in a suit for ....
A Sale Deed must be registered to be admissible in evidence, regardless of its historical context or the law in force at the time of execution.
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
