Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1837
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Silambara Vadivu & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
Raju & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. (MD) (PD) Nos. 605, 606 of 2018 & CMP (MD) Nos. 2699, 2700 of 2018
Decided On : 14-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Senthil
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Sitharanjandas
The main legal point established is that unregistered sale agreements can be admissible as evidence in a suit for specific performance under Section 49 of the Registration Act, and the court has discretion to seek expert opinion for signature comparison.
Headnote:
Unregistered Sale Agreement - Specific Performance - Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 - [Order 13, Rule 3 of C.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved Civil Revision Petitions arising from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The revision petitioners, defendants in the suit, challenged the orders allowing comparison of signatures and rejecting the application to cancel the sale agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the comparison of signatures and dismissed the application to cancel the sale agreement, citing the relevance of unregistered documents under Section 49 of the Registration Act in a suit for specific performance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the unregistered sale agreement and the relevance of expert opinion for signature comparison.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unregistered documents can be admissible as evidence in a suit for specific performance under Section 49 of the Registration Act, and the decision to seek expert opinion for signature comparison is at the discretion of the court.
Final Decision: Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, confirming the orders of the trial court.
Both these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of one and the same suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2017 and the issue involved in the Civil Revision Petitions are also the same, hence following common order is passed.
2. In so far as Civil Revision Petition No. 605 of 2018 is concerned, it is filed as against the order of allowing I.A. No. 51 of 2017 dated 11.01.2018 filed for comparison of Signature by the plaintiff/respondent.
3. In as much as C.R.P. No. 606 of 2018 is concerned, it is filed as against the order rejecting the application filed by the defendants/petitioners to cancel Exhibit A1 sale agreement in I.A. No. 52 of 2017 dated 11.01.2018.
4. The defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2017 which was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance are the revision petitioners herein.
5. It is the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that respondents herein as plaintiff filed the Suit against the Revision petitioners in O.S.No.75 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Mudukulathur for the relief of specific performance of the contract.
6. It is the contention of the Revision petitioners that the plaintiff has laid the suit basing upon Exhibit A1 sale agreement dated 30.04.2015 stating that the sale agreement was executed by defendants 1 to 3.
7. On the other hand the execution of sale agreement in favour of the respondent herein was denied by the Revision Petitioners. The trial was commenced and process of recording of evidence on behalf of plaintiff was over. The plaintiff examined himself as PW 1 and through him Exhibit A1 sale agreement dated 30.04.2015 was marked. Apart from PWs-1 and 2 other witness were examined on the side of plaintiff as Pws-2 and 3. According to the respondent/plaintiff, as the suit sale agreement Exhibit A1 was denied by the Revision Petitioners it necessitated him to file an application in I.A.No.51 of 2015 to compare the LTI of the first defendant, signatures of the defendants 2 and 3 in Exhibit A1 dated 30.04.2015. Admittedly signatures, Thumb Impression of the defendants 1 to 3 found in Exhibit A-21 sale dated 23.07.2015 and also to take LTI of 1st defendant, signature of the defendants 2 and 3 in the open Court and all the three documents can be sent to fingerprint expert opinion.
8. The Revision Petitioners also took out an application in I.A. No.52 of 2017 to scrap exhibit A1 sale agreement dated 30.04.2015 as the same is an unregistered and unstamped document.
9. It is the contention of Revision Petitioners that under Order 13, Rule 3 of C.P.C. the Court may at any stage of the suit, reject an irrelevant or inadmissible document. As Exhibit A-1 sale agreement is irrelevant and in admissible document and as it has not been registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, the same is to be rejected as irrelevant. And further it was not written in the Stamp Paper. As per Amended Registration Act, the government has introduced the section 17 (1) A wherein all the sale agreements are required to be registered compulsory, otherwise it will have no legal sanctity. Therefore as per the Amendment Act 29 of 2012 the unregistered sale agreement exhibited as A1 cannot be received and marked as exhibit. Hence the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners argued that the said unregistered, unstamped sale agreement will have to be rejected.
10. In support of their contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to the following Judgments:-
i. Vasantha vs. Manickam @ Thandapani reported in 2017 (3) TLNJ 459 (Civil),
ii. T.P. Latha @ Hemalatha and Ors vs. P. Sukumar reported in 2013 (1) MWN Civil 753.
11. Per contra, it was contented by the learned counsel for the respondent that though exhibit A1 is not registered, it can be relied upon for collateral purpose. To support his contention, he has taken aid of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which read as follows:-
“49. Effect of non-registration of document
