Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 83
2011 (2) MWN(Civil) 237
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R.S. RAMANATHAN
P.A. Thangarajan
Versus
G. Annadurai & Another
C.R.P.(PD)No.3035 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on : 07-01-2011
For the Petitioners:M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel for M. Sriram, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N. Manokaran, Advocate.
An unregistered document can be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, and the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for specific performance without exhausting the remedy available under the Registration Act.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Indian Stamp Act, Registration Act - [O.S.No.284 of 2008] - [Indian Stamp Act, Registration Act] - The court discussed the admissibility of an unregistered document as evidence for specific performance, the principles of using unregistered documents as evidence, and the availability of alternative remedies under the Registration Act and civil court. The court relied on judgments to establish that an unregistered document can be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance and that the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for specific performance without exhausting the remedy available under the Registration Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for specific performance after the first defendant refused to register a sale deed, claiming that the document was executed but not registered. The first defendant filed an application to reject the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation and the civil court had no jurisdiction to direct registration of the document.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application filed by the first defendant, stating that the plaintiff was entitled to file a suit for specific performance based on the unregistered document, and the suit was not barred by limitation or lacked cause of action.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of an unregistered document as evidence for specific performance, the jurisdiction of the civil court to direct registration, and the availability of alternative remedies under the Registration Act and civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that an unregistered document can be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance and that the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for specific performance without exhausting the remedy available under the Registration Act.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with the suit for specific performance.
1. The first defendant in O.S.No.284 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur is the revision petitioner.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance directing defendants 1 to 7 to execute and register the sale deed as per document dated 30.3.2005. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs as seen in the plaint is that the first defendant agreed to sell the property of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/= and the entire sale consideration was paid by the first plaintiff and on 30.3.2005, a sale deed was executed on Rs.20/= stamp paper and it was agreed that the sale deed would be presented for registration by paying the balance stamp duty on an auspicious day fixed by the first plaintiff and both the parties agreed for the same. Thereafter, the first defendant refused to register the sale deed and therefore, the suit was filed. The first defendant filed I.A.No.1042 of 2008 under order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not show any cause of action and it is barred by limitation.
3. It is stated by the first defendant in his counter affidavit that even according to the plaint, a contract was completed by execution of the sale deed and therefore, the plaintiff cannot file a suit for specific performance and he has to work out his remedy as per the provisions of the Registration Act by presenting the document for compulsory registration and the civil court has no jurisdiction to direct registration of the document. It is his further case that the alleged sale deed was dated 30.3.2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2008 and therefore, it is also clearly barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Registration Act.
4. The application filed by the revision petitioner for rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the Trial Court and as against the same, this revision is filed.
5. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even according to the plaint allegation, a sale deed was executed on 30.3.2005 on a stamp paper and admittedly, it was not written on duly stamped papers and now, they want to enforce that document to get a relief of specific performance and that document cannot be received in evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as it was not duly stamped. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the document dated 30.3.2005 cannot be construed as a sale agreement and it is an executed contract and only remedy available to the person is to present the document for compulsory registration as per the provisions of the Registration Act and that has to be done within the period stipulated by the Registration act and having waited for more than the period prescribed for presenting the document, a suit for specific performance cannot be entertained and according to him, there is nothing to be enforced as per the document dated 30.3.2005 as it is an executed contract.
6. On the other hand, Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that though the plaintiffs could have taken proceedings under the Registration Act for compulsory registration of the document, it is also open to them to file a suit for specific performance and the civil court has got jurisdiction and relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:-
i) KALAVAKURTI VENKATA SUBBAIAH v. BALA GURAPPAGARI GURUVI REDDY (AIR 1999 SC 2958)
ii) S.KALADEVI v. V.R.SOMASUNDARAM ((2010) 5 SCC 401)
iii)INDIRANI @ VEDANAYAKI v. CHITRA (2008(3) TLNJ 398).
7. According to me, the court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner. In the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 2958, it has been held as follows:-
"The analysis of the provisions of Section 77 of the Registration Act made by us above would indicate that it would apply only if a matter is pertaining to registration of a document and not for a comprehensive su
