Unregistered agreements for sale are invalid for enforcement; payment of stamp duty does not cure the non-registration defect under the Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The Plaintiffs in C.S. No.6/2012 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Boudh, are theappellants. In the present appeal, they seek to challenge the judgment dated 08.2.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Boudh, followed by decree in R.F.A No.22/2017 confirming thereby the judgment dated 19.5.2017 followed by decree passed by the Trial Court in the aforementioned suit.

2. The present respondent was the sole defendant in the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court while the counter claim of the respondent was allowed, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs’ case, briefly stated, is that they being the son and father respectively executed two agreements for sale on 18.7.2009 of the suit property in favour of the defendant. The suit property consisted of two lots in the plaint as described in the schedule. The consideration was fixed at Rs.67500/- each, which was paid in full. The plaintiffs also delivered possession to the defendant. Since the suit property was subjected to consolidation and the proposed sale would create a fragment, applications seeking permission of the consolidation authority were submitted by the plaintiffs under Section 34 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (OCH & PFL Act). It was stipulated in the agreements that the deeds of conveyance would be executed after obtaining permission. However, permission could not be obtained within the stipulated period mainly because of non-cooperation by the defendant. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for a decree of declaration that the two agreements dated 08.7.2009 are null and void and inoperative and further, for recovery of possession.

The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. She claimed that the full consideration amount was paid and she was in cultivating possession of the land, same being duly delivered to her. She further alleged that the plaintiffs did not take proper step in the permission cases before the Consolidation Officer for which they were dismissed for non-prosecution. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiffs claimed additional consideration citing escalation of price in the market, which led to the dispute between them for which the plaintiffs did not deliberately prosecute the permission applications. The plaintiffs issued notices to the defendants offering to return the consideration and when the defendant enquired the reason, they claimed enhanced consideration.

5. The defendant also filed a counter-claim seeking a direction to the plaintiffs to execute the deed ofconveyance in respect of the suit lands in her favour after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority within a stipulated period as well as for award of damages of Rs.2 lakhs in her favour. The plaintiffs filed written statement to the counter-claim questioning its maintainability and raising the plea that they were still in possession over the suit land. They further alleged that permission from the competent authority could not be obtained due to inaction of the defendant. As such, they were compelled to issue pleader’s notices to the defendant for revocation of their agreements and to refund the advance money taken by them.

6. On the