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

2025 Supreme(Chh) 204

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J
Hirendra Kashyap S/o Late Shri Parmanand Kashyap – Appellant
Versus
Laxminarayan Soni, S/o. Gangaprasad Soni – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The judgment concerns admissibility and enforceability of an unregistered agreement to sell under the Registration Act, and its impact on rights to a sale deed (Section 17, 49, 17(1A)) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It deals with whether possession transferred under an unregistered agreement can be relied upon as a conveyance under the Stamp Act and its effect on admissibility under Section 35 (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It examines whether defendants 1–3 were members of a joint family and whether defendant 1 acted as Karta to authorize the sale/agreement (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes the effect of the unregistered agreement on the plaintiff’s claim for registration of a sale deed versus refund of advance money (!) (!) . - The court upholds trial court’s findings that the agreement was unregistered, and thus not enforceable to compel registration of a sale deed; the appeal is dismissed (!) (!) . - It cites legal doctrine on the deeming provision in the Stamp Act (explanation to Article 23, Schedule 1-A) and the exception under Section 49 and 17(1A) in specific circumstances (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court’s alternate relief of refund of Rs. 40,000 with interest is affirmed; no decree for specific performance is granted (!) (!) . - The respondent’s claim of bona fide purchase by defendant No.4 is sustained based on registration and majority status of defendants 2 & 3 on the relevant date (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Conclusion: Unregistered agreement to sell cannot confer rights; registration is mandatory for enforceability, and non-registration bars admissibility or action upon the agreement (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim and defendants' denial (Para 2 , 3)
2. trial court's findings (Para 4)
3. plaintiff's argument on joint family (Para 5)
4. defendant's argument on majority (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court's review of evidence (Para 7)
6. admissibility of unregistered agreement (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24)
7. appeal dismissed (Para 21 , 22)

Judgment :

1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2007 passed by District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Suit No.8A/2006, dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against respondent/defendants to the extent of registration of sale deed in respect of suit property. However, alternative relief sought for by the plaintiff for refund of advance amount of Rs.40,000/-, has been granted by the trial Court in his favour.

2. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, the plaintiff filed civil suit against defendants stating inter alia that defendant No.1 entered into agreement to sell suit property, i.e. piece of Khasra No.138 numbered as 138/2, area 0.56 hectare, situ

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top