JUDGMENT :

The appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.281/2018 dated 10.04.2019.

2. The respondent plaintiff is the appellant in the appeal suit. The respondents in the appeal suit filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.281 of 2018 in O.S.No.7 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of plaint.

3. The contention of the respondents plaintiff before the trial Court was that the Government has amended the Registration Act and implemented compulsory registration of sale agreement from 01.12.2012. The alleged sale agreement involved in this suit is not a registered one and therefore, the same is void and cannot be entertained for the purpose of filing the suit for the relief of specific performance. There is no collateral purpose in the sale agreement. As per Section 17 and 49 of Registration Act, the suit is barred under law and the same is to be registered. The petition was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., mainly on the ground that the suit sale agreement is admittedly not a registered document and therefore, the suit for specific performance cannot be entertained and consequently, the plaint is to be rejected.

4. The appellants respondents disputed the said ground by stating that the suit was filed on 02.01.2018 before the Principal District Judge, Namakkal and on 07.02.2018, the defendants appeared through their counsel.

5. It is contended that the suit has been filed by the respondents/ plaintiff on the basis of unregistered sale agreement dated 24.12.2014 and the Government has amended the Registration Act and implemented compulsory registration of sale agreement from 01.12.2012 is absolutely false. As per Section 17 and 49 of Registration Act, the suit is barred under law and the same is also denied.

6. Relying on the Apex Court judgment as well as the judgment of the High Court for suit for specific performance, such a registration is not compulsory with reference to Section 42 of the Registration Act and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The trial Court considered the issues raised between the parties and arrived a conclusion that the non-registration of the sale agreement is a vital factor and therefore, the suit for specific performance cannot be entertained and accordingly, rejected the plaint. The trial Court mainly relied upon Section 17 of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2012 and held that entertaining a suit for specific performance, the sale agreement must be a registered one and the sale agreement in the present suit admittedly is not registered. The suit cannot be entertained and accordingly, rejected the plaint.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a submission that the legal proposition set out by the trial Court is absolutely in contradiction with the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as by the High Court of Madras.

9. Even recently, the High Court of Madras in the case of D.Devarajan Vs. Alphonsa Mary, reported in [2019(2) CTC 290], held as follows:

“7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied heavily on the Proviso to contend that an unregistered agreement affecting immovable property is no bar to be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance. This is an aspect that has come before Andhra Pradesh High Court in Suresh Babu case. The setting is substantially identical, except for a marginal variance where the case came up before the Andhra Pradesh High Court against an Order dismissing an application of the defendant to reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The state of Andra Pradesh had brought in an identical amendment to Sec.17 of the Registration with its own Sec.17(1)(g). It reads in pari materia with Sec.17(1)(g) as amended by Tamil Nadu, and in fact is a forerunner to Tamil Nadu amendment. Sec.17(1)(g) reads:

“Sec.17: Documents of which registration is compulsory: “(1)(a) to (f) ….... (g) instruments of agreement rela