SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Cal) 197

High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Datta
LALIT MOHUN DUTTA - Appellant
Versus
BASUDEB DUTTA - Respondent
Civil Rule 3914  Of  1974
Decided On : 06/04/1976

Advocates Appeared:
MAHINDRA NATH GHOSH, MANORANJAN DAS, PUSPAMAY DASGUPTA

Agreements simpliciter are not required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and are enforceable in law even if not registered.

Headnote:

CONTRACT - AGREEMENT - REGISTRATION - PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1882, SECTION 19(H) - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, SECTION 10 - CONTRACT ACT, 1872, SECTION 25 - INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - An agreement made without consideration is void unless it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being in force for the registration of documents and is made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for recovery of unpaid consideration for the sale of his business to his sons (defendants) and for monthly payments due under two written agreements executed by the defendants to pay their father a sum of Rs. 50/- during his lifetime as pocket expenses.

Finding of the Court:

The Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the agreements were void as they were not registered as required by law.

Issues: Whether the agreements were required to be registered under the law for the time being in force for registration of documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the agreements simpliciter were not required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, as there was no provision for registration of an agreement simpliciter under the Act. The Court further held that Section 25 of the Contract Act, which provides that an agreement made without consideration is void unless it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being in force for the registration of documents, does not apply to agreements simpliciter, as the word 'documents' in Section 25 is confined to agreements and any special provision in respect thereto by any other Act has been specifically preserved.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the plaintiff's Rule, set aside the impugned order, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for the amount claimed under the agreements.

SALIL KUMAR DATTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained against the judgment and order of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, dated June 12, 1974. By that order the defendants' application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in modification of the order passed by the trial Judge. The relevant facts are as follows: the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- stated to be the unpaid consideration for the sale of his business to the defendants who are his sons. The plaintiff also included in the suit a claim of a sum of Rs. 2,450/- against the defendants, as the monthly payment of Rs. 50/- due from March 14, 1969 to March, 1971, for 24 months and 15 days on the basis of the two written agreements executed by each of the defendants on March 14, 1969. By these agreements each of the defendants agreed to pay to their father, the plaintiff, during his lifetime by way of pocket expenses a sum of Rs. 50/- in consideration of the great regard they had for their father. They however failed to pay the amounts mentioned above and the suit was instituted on April 24, 1971, in the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, being Suit No. 1392 of 1971, for the recovery of the same.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants who filed a joint written statement stating that the sum of Rupees 1,000/- representing the unpaid consideration was not payable as the plaintiff failed to perform his obligations under the sale agreement. In regard to the claim on the agreements it was said that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and further the claim was untenable being based on a contract which was not registered as required in law.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge on a trial on evidence held against the plaintiff in so far as the claim for Rs. 1,000/-was concerned. In regard to the other claim, it was held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiff was entitled to the amount as claimed. The suit was decreed in part for Rs. 2,450/- on contest with proportionate costs.

( 4 ) THE defendants filed an application under Section 38 of the Act challenging the above decision and the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta was of opinion that the agreements were not registered as required in law and accordingly the agreements were void. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the learned trial Judge was set aside in respect of the claim and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The present Rule was obtained by the plaintiff against this decision and is confined to the claim under the agreements.

( 5 ) MR. Puspamoy Das Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Full Bench was in error in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as the agreements were not required in law to be registered under the Registration Act and as such the provisions of Section 25 of the Contract Act in regard to registration had no application. The plaintiff was accordingly entitled to a decree on these agreements.

( 6 ) MR. Manindra Nath Ghose, learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties, in effect conceded that the suit was maintainable in the Court of the Small Causes. The Court of Small Causes, Calcutta under Section 19 Clause (h) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 has no jurisdiction in suits for specific performance or rescission of contracts. Under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance of a contract can only be enforceable when there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage for non-performance of the act agreed to be done. In the case before us there is no difficulty in ascertaining the actual amount that would be payable for non-performance of the contract. Accordingly I do not think that there is any substance in this point which at one time was taken by Mr. Das learned Advocate for the opposite parties, at an earlier hearing.

( 7 ) THE next point requiring co



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top