PATNA HIGH COURT
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
Binay Krishna
Versus
Ashok Kumar
C.R. No. 924 of 2006 ;
Decided On : MAY 18, 2007
Registration Act - Interpretation of Amendments - Section 17(1)(b) and (c), Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 18, Section 49 - The court discussed the applicability of the amendments brought in the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, focusing on the compulsory registration of non-testamentary instruments, the doctrine of part performance, and the optional registration of documents. The court emphasized that a contract for sale is not required to be registered and can be enforced through a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. It highlighted the provisions that exempt a contract for sale from compulsory registration and allow unregistered documents affecting immovable property to be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a title suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. The defendant filed an application to reject the plaint on the ground that the unregistered contract for sale cannot be enforced for specific performance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contract for sale is not required to be registered and can be enforced through a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. It held that the amendments brought by the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 only relate to the applicability of the doctrine of part performance and do not affect the provisions relating to a contract for sale.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the compulsory registration of non-testamentary instruments, the applicability of the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and the admissibility of unregistered documents affecting immovable property in a suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing that a contract for sale is not required to be registered and can be enforced through a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. It relied on the provisions exempting a contract for sale from compulsory registration and allowing unregistered documents affecting immovable property to be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application, affirming the order of the court below and holding that there was no jurisdictional or legal error in rejecting the petition to reject the plaint.
1. Earlier, the petitioner was appearing in the matter in person but after understanding the complexity involved in the interpretation of the amendments brought in the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, he has again appeared through counsel.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The revision application is directed against the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Biharsharif in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 by which the petition of the defendant petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
4. The aforesaid title suit had been filed by the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties for specific performance of contract seeking a direction upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties described in Schedule-1 of the plaint and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs based their case on an unregistered deed of Baybeyana (contract for sale) dated 19.11.2003. After appearing in the case, the defendant-petitioners filed an application on 27.2.2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint on the ground, inter alia, that the contract for sale being unregistered is inadmissible and cannot be enforced for the purpose of specific performance of contract. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the rejoinder and after hearing the parties, the court below by the impugned order has rejected the petition, since in the opinion of the court Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable and the contract for sale was not required to be registered even as per the Registration and Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on various provisions of the Registration Act in support of his submission. Firstly it is submitted that under Section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Registration Act any non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest, vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards to or in immovable property, is compulsorily required to be registered and further any non-testamentary instrument which acknowledges the receipt of payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest is required to be registered.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel that a contract for sale purports or operates to create a right to the immovable property in future and thus it will be required to be registered in terms of the said provisions. In this regard learned counsel relies upon the Registration and Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 by which sub-section (1A) of Section 17 has been introduced in the Registration Act which provides that the documents containing contract to transfer any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the said Act and if such document is not registered then they shall have no effect for the purpose of the said Section 53A of the Act. In respect of Section 53A of the Act, learned counsel submits that the said provision only debars the transferor from enforcing against the transferee any right in respect of the properties over which the transferee has taken or continued in possession whereas in the present matter, the transferees are admittedly not in possession.
7. Learned counsel further relies upon Section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908 , which provides for the optional registration of document and in which no provision has been made for any contract for sale. Learned counsel thereafter, refers to Section 49 of the Registration Act under which a document which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act by any provision of Transfer of Property Act shall not be re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.