The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for Specific Performance is maintainable even if the remedy for registration under the Registration Act has not been followed.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment in A.S.No.45/1996 reversing Judgment of the trial court and thereby decreeing Plaintiffs suit for Specific Performance. Defendant is the Appellant in the Second Appeal. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suit.

2. Case of Plaintiff is that she has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- on 12.01.1987 to the Defendant for purchase of suit property and that Defendant after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- had executed the deed of sale (Ex.A1) which was prepared on 12.01.1987 and that Defendant also executed the copy of sale deed which has to be presented to the Registration Department and that Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property in part performance by Defendant and thereafter, Defendant failed to execute the sale deed for registration before the Registration Department despite several requests. After issuing legal notice Ex.A2 dated 111. 1992, Plaintiff has filed suit for Specific Performance. According to the Plaintiff, she was always ready and willing to complete the process of sale and she has spent Rs.600/- towards purchase of stamp paper and preparation charges.

3. Defendant opposing maintainability of suit. According to the Defendant, Plaintiff ought to have had recourse to the procedure prescribed under Indian Registration Act. One Srinivasan filed suit against the Defendant in O.S.No.343/1987 for Specific Performance which was dismissed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The said Srinivasan who arranged for sale of Plots had appropriated the sale consideration and the said Srinivasan should have obtained signature from the Plaintiff and that Defendant has not received the consideration of Rs.5,000/-and therefore, Defendant is not liable to execute the sale deed.

4. On the above pleadings, trial court framed relevant issues. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that there was no privity of contract with the Defendant and that Sec.23 of Registration Act was not complied with. Trial court further held that when the Defendant had denied the signature, Plaintiff had not taken steps to prove the execution and Plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of Specific Performance.

5. Being aggrieved, Plaintiff has preferred A.S.No.45/1996. Learned Appellate Judge negatived defence plea that Defendant did not sign in Ex.A1. Placing reliance upon 95 Law Weekly 546 (Ellammal v. Rangaswamy Koundar and others), lower Appellate court held that Civil suit filed for Specific Performance is maintainable and Sec.77 of Registration Act would not be a bar for filing of suit. Observing that there was no specific denial regarding execution of sale deed, learned Appellate Judge reversed the findings of trial court and allowed the Appeal.

6. Aggrieved, Defendant has preferred the Second Appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

1) When Sec.23 of the Indian Registration Act bars the registration of documents filed after 4 months of execution is the suit filed on 3. 1993 for specific performance to register the sale deed executed on 11. 1987 maintainable?

2) Is the learned District Judge correct in decreeing the suit when the suit for registration of document is barred under Sec.9 of C.P.C.?

3) Is not the suit for specific performance barred by limitation?

7. Challenging the findings of lower Appellate court, Mr. K.S.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that Plaintiff did not pursue the remedies under Section 23 of Indian Registration Act (for short Act) and as such the suit framed is not maintainable. Submitting that Sec.9 of C.P.C. is to be strictly complied, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that when provisions of Registration Act are exhaustive and when the remedy falls within the ambit of Registration Act, lower Appellate court ought to have held that the