Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE
Sunil S/o Bibhishan More – Appellant
Versus
Dattatray S/o Marotirao Solanke – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges prior court order (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the validity of the agreement (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. agreement to sell without possession isn't a conveyance (Para 6) |
| 4. supreme court ruling on unregistered documents (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. error in lower court's ruling identified (Para 9) |
| 6. court's final order and decision (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition finally with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission.
2. By way of the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order dated 13.10.2022 passed below Exhibit-22 by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Special Civil Suit No.47/2021, whereby the Application filed by the Original Defendants/Respondents for impounding the agreement to sell dated 23.11.2020 came to be allowed.
3. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract. In the said suit, the Defendants filed an application below Exhibit-22 contending that the agreement of sale dated 23.11.2020, allegedly executed by the Original Defendants/Respondents in favour of the Original Plaintiffs/Petitioners, was an unregistered docum
Unregistered agreements for the sale of property without possession delivery are not conveyances and do not require stamping, valid for evidence in specific performance cases.
The trial Court has discretion to deny document production in a specific performance case; unregistered agreements can serve as evidence if possession was not delivered.
Proper stamping and registration are essential for the admissibility of unregistered documents affecting immovable property as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The court has a duty to dec....
Agreement to sell – Impounding an agreement to sell of an immovable property after 23 years of its alleged execution, where execution itself is disputed and which was never presented for registration....
A suit for specific performance necessitates the plaintiff's readiness to fulfill obligations, while unregistered documents cannot substantiate ownership rights unless properly admitted as evidence.
Stamp duty is on instrument and not on transaction – For several documents to form part of a single transaction, there must be a transaction in furtherance of which several other documents are execut....
An unregistered document can be admissible in a suit for specific performance, and a plaint cannot be rejected solely on the grounds of non-registration or insufficient stamp duty without trial evide....
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
